Legal Talk Network - Law News and Legal Topics

Julie Suk is worried about American democracy.

"Over time, the control of our constitutional future has really been in the domain of the judiciary and the executive branch, with the judiciary increasingly green-lighting actions by the executive branch," Suk tells host Lee Rawles. "And at the same time, our institutions, our lawmaking institutions that are supposed to represent the people have become less and less representative because of gerrymandering, and also less and less capable of making laws that push back against judicial and executive power."

In her new book, The Shadow Court: Rescuing Democracy from the Supreme Court, Suk proposes one potential tool to fight back.

The "shadow docket" may be a familiar term to people who have been paying attention to growing controversies over the U.S. Supreme Court's emergency decisions. But a shadow court is a different–and older–concept, Suk says. Just as a shadow parliament is intended to be a check on the power of a parliament, a shadow court could issue legal opinions independent of h a supreme court's actions. Many other countries have constitutional courts in addition to courts of litigation, that issue advisory opinions on constitutional issues.

Suk proposes that Congress could create "a watchdog institution that provided an alternative jurisprudence or an alternative set of rulings so that the people could know what would we have in America if we actually had institutions that were designed better for the purposes of constitutional lawmaking and constitutional change."

One benefit of an Article I shadow court would be the ability for its judges to weigh in on constitutional questions without the necessity of a plaintiff with standing bringing a case through the entire Article III court system to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, Suk says. They could evaluate pending legislation or executive actions with much greater speed.

"And that opinion is advisory," says Suk. "It's not binding on Congress. It doesn't invalidate the state statute. It doesn't suspend the operation of the executive order in the same way that a court can issue a preliminary or permanent injunction. The shadow court's opinion being advisory, I would say could still, if it's designed properly, could still have a tremendous effect on our politics and also on our law."

In this episode, Suk and Rawles discuss how other countries have used shadow parliaments and constitutional courts to safeguard democracy. They also discuss ways to make a shadow court more reflective of changing public attitudes, and Suk's Lego-piece theory for improving the United States government.

Subscribe to Modern Law Library: https://play.megaphone.fm/93wtgxnatpsubsdxwklzwq

What does real prep look like? Hosts John Simon, Tim Cronin and Erich Veith discuss re-reading the pleadings (even when you think you remember them), pre-running exhibits with the video tech, using your experts, and why AI can draft your outline but can't do your thinking. Plus: the "just damages" lesson John Simon learned the hard way in year one.

Subscribe to The Jury Is Out: https://play.megaphone.fm/td_bgp7ytmwvduhtrxauqq

In 2016, Susan Carns Curtiss added 46 women attorneys she knew to a Facebook group with no real plan behind it, and it's since grown into Girl Attorney, a network of more than 40,000 women lawyers trading practice advice, mentorship, and support across the country. A plaintiff's personal injury and wrongful death trial lawyer in Oklahoma City, Curtiss describes watching newer attorneys increasingly post anonymously about burnout and a lack of mentorship, even as most of the community is thriving, and shares her own recent experience nearly drowning in a growing litigation docket before a longtime colleague stepped in to help her offload cases. She credits two decades of showing up in her local bar and trial lawyer community for having someone to call when she needed it, and pushes back gently on the idea that women's push for work-life balance is a new trend rather than a fight that's been underway for years. Curtiss closes with a call not to look away from what she sees as a broader breakdown in the rule of law, and to find the others who are choosing to stand up rather than turn away.

Proving once again that ALPS Insurance puts the "treat" in retreat, they gathered leaders in law from across the country this summer. These sit-down conversations reveal flavors of leadership and legal trends from a variety of perspectives. Cool takes, one scoop at a time, recorded live at the 2026 ALPS Bar Leaders Retreat in Missoula, MT.

President Trump recently banned three major media outlets from the White House including CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, stating that these journalists “threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods” through their coverage. This led to litigation from these outlets against the Trump Administration, based on violations of the First Amendment/freedom of the press & Fifth Amendment/due process protections. Recently a U.S. District Judge issued a two-week temporary restraining order on Trump's ban restoring the outlets' White House access for now. On October 8th, the TRO will expire, leading many to believe Trump will then enforce a complete ban, unless stopped by a judge.

On this Lawyer 2 Lawyer episode, Craig welcomes Peter Loge, Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, an Associate Professor, and the founding director of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication. Craig & Peter spotlight the freedom of the press. President Trump's recent ban of journalists from three major media outlets, the Judge's order to restore press credentials, the First & Fifth Amendment, and the potential impact on the press.



Mentioned in this episode:Office Hours with Karpf and Loge

Subscribe to Lawyer 2 Lawyer: https://play.megaphone.fm/6kyeqlhety25kgmgqdr7cw

Pets are property under the law, but try telling that to a couple fighting over who keeps the dog. Attorney Maggie Brister of New Mexico Legal Group unpacks why pet custody disputes can get messier than child custody cases, including a divorce that stalled for months over a 50-year marriage, a Great Dane, and a Shih Tzu, and a case where a husband withheld his ex-wife's service animal for six months during mediation. Brister explains why New Mexico law treats every animal, from horses to bearded dragons, as chattel rather than a family member, and why judges have little patience for couples who file motions over pets while more urgent cases involving children wait. The conversation covers a particularly bizarre case involving a beloved bearded dragon, its cremated remains, and a secret one spouse kept from her own attorney for eighteen months, along with the negotiating tactics some spouses and attorneys use to weaponize pets for leverage during a divorce and why doing so tends to backfire in front of a judge. Brister closes with the reminder that keeping a bonded pair of dogs together, or simply letting go, often matters more than winning the fight.

Subscribe to Confessions of a Divorce Assassin: https://play.megaphone.fm/yddxa_zfqjimbgjtoqzijw