When the Supreme Court settles a case, it often evaluates the constitutionality of a law. If the statute conflicts with any constitutional provision, the Court holds that the state cannot enforce it. Why are Congress and the president bound by this determination – are they bound at all?

In this podcast, the HULR examines the persistent debate on the legalization of abortion and state of Roe v. Wade. This podcast will provide information on past and present cases involving Roe v. Wade and how they might impact the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health this summer. We will also look at the different laws that have emerged in different states and the implications not only for women but also for doctors and women who have miscarriages. We will explore the controversy surrounding specific state regulations like the Texas “Heartbeat Bill” and Alabama’s Human Life Protection Act. Finally, we will look at the case of Roe v. Wade itself, delving into problems with the initial ruling and also discussing the implications if it were to be overturned this summer. We hope that this podcast provides its listeners with a better understanding of the debate around abortion, the recent developments across the nation, and the detriments of reversing a landmark case.

Although overall alcohol consumption decreased due to Prohibition, Americans still managed to obtain liquor illegally. In fact, most of Congress enjoyed alcoholic beverages during Prohibition thanks to one enterprising war veteran, George L. Cassiday. Cassiday single-handedly supplied liquor to 80% of Congress, including members who publicly supported Prohibition, during ten of the thirteen years of Prohibition. The tale of Cassiday’s illegal bootlegging operation on Capitol Hill raises questions about the purpose of laws — was Prohibition really effective? — and about the hypocrisy of lawmakers.

In this podcast, we discuss the ongoing Elizabeth Holmes' trial and its larger implications as a classic case of the "fake it until you make it" Silicon Valley startup culture. Elizabeth Holmes is facing ten charges of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud regarding her startup Theranos. We talk about her quick rise to the top and devastating fall that may serve as a cautionary tale for other ambitious entrepreneurs. She has lost her money, her reputation, and potentially her life as a free woman as she faces up to 20 years in prison. We dive into the main arguments of the defense and prosecution as well as analyze the lasting impression this trial will leave on the Silicon Valley culture.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-Asian sentiments and incidents of violence have surged around the country. AAPI advocates have criticized social and political responses to anti-AAPI violence and the minimal recognition of these incidents as hate crimes. In the wake of the March 2021 Atlanta spa shootings that left eight individuals dead—six of whom were Asian-American women, Americans are once again asking a tragically familiar question: When is a mass shooting legally considered a hate crime in the U.S.? And what difference does this label make?

In this podcast, we speak with Manjusha P. Kulkarni, a racial justice attorney and an activist who has worked on behalf of communities of color for over twenty years. In March of 2020, she and the Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council helped found the Stop AAPI Hate reporting center to combat the rise in anti-Asian American racism. Today, Kulkarni discusses the legal underpinnings of hate crime prosecution with the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review.

This podcast discusses the issue of homelessness and freedom from a jurisprudence perspective. We unpack Jeremy Waldron’s controversial claim that “the homeless are free only to the extent that society is communist” and analyze whether homeless people have the same freedoms as people with homes. We talk about what would happen in the libertarian dream scenario where everything would be privately owned, and because homeless people essentially do not privately own any property, they would not be allowed to exist or perform basic human activities. In fact, rights we consider extremely important, including those listed in the Bill of Rights, can only be enjoyed if one has the freedom to exist and survive in the first place, so the constitutional freedoms of the homeless depend on how much of the land is substantively put in common.

Nearly twenty years ago, the United States was thrown into a legal crisis when the winner of the 2000 Presidential race remained unknown for 35 days after the election. Shortly after Al Gore called George W. Bush to retract his concession, a legal battle broke out in Florida counties where vote recounts were to be held. To the frustration of countless Democrats, Gore cited this recount as a legal and not a political process. Conversely, Republicans claimed that Democrats were trying to steal the election. Ultimately, Bush was handed an electoral victory by the Supreme Court in the landmark case known as Bush v. Gore, by a vote of five to four. In 2020, President Trump has cast doubt onto the authenticity of mail-in voting, and has taken to the courts to try and prove rampant voter fraud to little avail. Are we likely to see another Bush v. Gore unfold in 2020?