The Just Security Podcast

In 2018, the Supreme Court created a revolution in the Fourth Amendment. In Carpenter v. United States, the Court found that the government needed a warrant to obtain data about the cell phone towers to which a person connected when using their phone. That data can reveal the digital breadcrumbs of a person’s life – including where they went and how long they stayed. But cell phone users give that location data to their phone providers, third-party companies like AT&T and Verizon. Those companies don’t have the legal ability to challenge a government’s request for the user’s data. In fact, the companies often can’t even notify the user about a request for information. This creates a paradox. Cell phone users, the people who have a Fourth Amendment right to challenge the government’s request for information, don’t know the government is requesting it and third-party companies know about the request but can’t challenge it in court. The third-party paradox has massive implications for privacy rights and raises important questions about how to challenge the government’s request for information that might be protected by the Fourth Amendment. Joining the show to discuss the third-party paradox and the Fourth Amendment is Michael Dreeben. Michael argued Carpenter and over 100 other cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government. He is now a partner at the law firm O’Melveny & Myers, a Distinguished Lecturer from Government at Georgetown University Law Center, and a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Show Notes: Michael DreebenParas Shah (@pshah518) Resolving Carpenter’s Third-Party Paradox (Part I and Part II) Just Security’s Fourth Amendment coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “The Clock is Ticking” by Simon Folwar from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/the-clock-is-ticking (License code: FY1TG2G1ESDYMSHF)

The U.N. General Assembly’s annual meeting is underway in New York. Leaders from around the world will attend the High-Level Week, which begins on September 18. On the agenda are topics ranging from the continuing response Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to slow progress on sustainable development, and the looming regulation of artificial intelligence. Joining the show to discuss what we expect from this year’s U.N. General Assembly meetings is Richard Gowan. Richard is U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.Show Notes: Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard’s Just Security article previewing UNGA 78Just Security’s U.N. General Assembly coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverageJust Security’s climate change coverageJust Security’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Hypotheticals” by “AK” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/ak/hypothetical (License code: ZYWSWAROJNPTCX30) 

Two decades ago, leaders from around the world had a moment of reckoning. The images and news reports of genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were still fresh memories, and many countries recognized they hadn’t done enough to respond or prevent the violence. So diplomats at the United Nations had a bold idea. That countries have a collective responsibility to protect their people from war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This responsibility includes using diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means to help each country protect its own citizens, but nations also agreed that they were “prepared to take collective action” when peaceful means prove inadequate and national authorities fail to act.  Today, the responsibility to protect, or R2P as it’s often called, is being tested as mass atrocities occur around the world – from Ukraine to Myanmar to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But, whose responsibility it is to protect – or act – is uncertain.Even at the U.N., no clear direction has emerged. In June, the U.N.’s top official on R2P, George Okoth-Obbo, said he would resign from his role as Special Advisor after just 17 months. Okoth-Obbo isn’t alone. The previous two R2P Special Advisors left after less than 3 years. The Special Advisor’s short tenure leaves people facing atrocity crimes without an ally and advocate at the U.N. Joining the show to discuss the R2P Special Advisor’s role, and why the office has seen so much turnover, is Rebecca Barber. Up until recently Rebecca was a research fellow at the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, and she is also an honorary senior research fellow at the University of Queensland. Show Notes: Rebecca Barber (@becjbarber) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Rebecca’s Just Security article analyzing the U.N.’s support for the R2P Special AdvisorJust Security’s coverage of the R2P Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “A Simple Life” by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/a-simple-life (License code: WIXYQUFKZO5KP7GO) 

In October 2019, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed during a U.S. military raid on his compound in Syria. Former President Donald Trump called the raid “impeccable,” and the Defense Department said that no civilians were harmed in the operation. But reporting from NPR determined that two civilians were killed and a third lost his arm from U.S. airstrikes. The Defense Department disagreed and dismissed NPR’s claims as “not credible” based in part on a lack of metadata in images that NPR and Airwars, a watchdog group that monitors the civilian impact of military actions, provided. Until now, the U.S. military appears to have never required metadata for images to be considered as evidence. If this new standard continues, it will be much harder for researchers and journalists to collect and submit evidence of civilian harm in U.S. military operations, which erodes accountability when harm occurs.  Joining the show to discuss the Baghdadi raid and the U.S. response to claims of civilian harm are Airwars Director Emily Tripp and Conflict Researcher Anna Zahn. Show Notes:  Emily Tripp (@Emily_4319) Anna ZahnParas Shah (@pshah518) Anna’s Just Security article on the al-Baghdadi raidNPR’s reporting on Syrian casualties in the raid (also in Arabic) Just Security’s coverage of civilian harm Just Security’s coverage of the Department of Defense’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP)Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Abide” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/abide (License code: OSHRWBZJ90OZARBA)

Former President Donald Trump is now facing his fourth criminal case. On Monday, August 14, a grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others, including his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, over their alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The indictment charges that the defendants engaged in a sweeping criminal enterprise, which involved submitting false slates of electors, pressuring state officials, breaching voting data, and perjury, among other conduct.  Joining the show to discuss the most recent Trump indictment, we have Ambassador Norman Eisen. Norm is the former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic and has also served as special counsel and special assistant to the president for ethics and government reform. In 2019 and 2020, he served as special counsel on the House Judiciary Committee majority during Trump’s impeachment proceedings and trial. Norm has written extensively about the Georgia indictment. Show Notes: Ambassador Norman Eisen (@NormEisen) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s Georgia indictment coverage  Just Security’s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR) 

The criminal charges against Donald Trump continue to pile up.On July 27, a superseding indictment was filed in the classified documents case against Trump, adding three additional charges to the 37 originally filed in June. Five days later, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment over the former president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The superseding indictment in the classified documents case alleges that Trump violated the Espionage Act by retaining a classified document described as a “presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country,” at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and that Trump conspired with two associates, Carlos De Oliveira and Walt Nauta, to obstruct justice by attempting to delete security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago in order to conceal it from the FBI and a grand jury. Joining the show to discuss the additional charges in the classified documents case is David Aaron. David is a Senior Counsel in the Washington, D.C. and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor in the Justice Department's National Security Division, where he prosecuted Espionage Act violations and saw how the process works from the inside. This conversation was recorded on July 30, 2023. Show Notes: David Aaron (@davidcaaron)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s Espionage Act coverageJust Security’s classified information coverageJust Security’s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Just Security’s Trump Classified Docs ClearinghouseTess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) and Ryan Goodman’s (@rgoodlaw) Just Security article on the national security implications of the superseding indictment Brian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben’s Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR) 

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, diplomats, lawyers, and advocates from around the world have pushed for ways to hold Vladimir Putin and other senior leaders accountable for starting the war. Those efforts include creating a court to prosecute the international crime of aggression – the illegal use of force by one country against another. But 3,000 miles south of the Russia-Ukraine border, another potential act of aggression has received far less attention. Over the past year and a half, Rwandan troops have conducted military operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and engaged in direct combat with the Congolese military and armed groups. According to the United Nations and human rights groups Rwandan troops have actively supported the March 23 Movement, M23, a Congolese armed group with longstanding ties to the Rwandan government. Accountability for the crime of aggression nmatters because acts of aggression can lead to other grave crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Punishing the crime of aggression is also essential to protecting the sovereign rights of all States, no matter their size or military strength. Joining the show to discuss the situation in the DRC, the arguments that Rwanda is committing acts of aggression against Congo, and Rwanda’s likely responses is Daniel Levine-Spound.Daniel is a human rights lawyer and researcher. He is currently a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. Daniel was previously a U.N. Peacekeeping Researcher covering the DRC and South Sudan at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) and was based in Goma, DRC.Show Notes: Daniel Levine-Spound (@dlspound) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Daniel’s Just Security article on potential acts of Rwandan aggression against the DRC Just Security’s DRC coverageJust Security’s Rwanda coverageJust Security’s crime of aggression coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Caravan” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)

Since former President Donald Trump was indicted for retaining sensitive government documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Espionage Act has become a household term. But only a small number of lawyers have seen an Espionage Act trial from the inside. Just Security has assembled an all-star roundtable of experienced federal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have handled high-profile Espionage Act cases. Joining the show to share their insights, experience, and views on Trump’s Espionage Act charges are David Aaron, Andrew Weissmann, and Jim Wyda. David and Jim have previously faced off from opposite sides of an Espionage Act prosecution, but they’ve come together for this special discussion. Before he joined private practice, David was a prosecutor at the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Andrew has served in many senior Justice Department roles, including on the leadership team for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and as the General Counsel of the FBI. Jim is the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland. This episode is hosted by Paras Shah, with co-production and editing by Tiffany Chang, Michelle Eigenheer, and Allison Mollenkamp. Show Notes:  David Aaron (@davidcaaron)Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) James WydaParas Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s Espionage Act coverageJust Security’s classified information coverageJust Security’s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Just Security’s Trump Classified Docs ClearinghouseBrian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben’s Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

Today, July 12, the leaders of NATO member countries are wrapping up a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The meeting opened as Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ended his opposition to NATO membership for Sweden, and as President Biden said Ukraine still needs to take steps before it can join the Alliance. Biden further said Ukraine shouldn’t be admitted while Russia’s invasion continues because that would pit the Alliance directly against Russia.In 2008, Alliance members vaguely promised that Ukraine could join NATO, but left the timing unspecified. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it clear he believes his country deserves membership, particularly as it fights for its survival against Russian aggression and defends democratic values.But the agreement NATO members reached this week only offers Ukraine membership “when allies agree, and conditions are met,” though the Alliance did put together a package of weapons and security assurances in the meantime.To discuss the summit and unpack its implications, we have Ambassador Daniel Fried. During his 40 years in the foreign service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles including, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted a public forum with other think tanks as part of the NATO summit.  Show Notes: Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Ambassador Fried’s Just Security article previewing the NATO Summit Just Security’s NATO coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Underworld” by “Revo” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/revo/underworld (License code: MWDRAARUCSZNLOLV)

On July 4th a federal judge restricted the Biden administration from contacting social media companies about their content moderation policies. The court found that federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, could not flag specific posts to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to encourage them to remove content. Though the order provides exceptions for the government to contact or notify social media companies about posts that involve crimes, national security threats, foreign attempts to influence elections, and other similar risks to public safety.While an appeal in the case, Missouri v. Biden, is pending, the decision is a major development in the legal fight over online speech and the First Amendment. Some elected Republicans have accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube of disproportionately silencing conservative viewpoints, while others argue that content moderation is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech. To unpack the initial decision in Missouri v. Biden, and what it means for the First Amendment and online speech, we have Mayze Teitler. Mayze is a Legal Fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute where they focus on the surveillance of incarcerated people, spyware, and government transparency. Show Notes: Mayze Teitler (@amteitler)Knight First Amendment Institute (@knightcolumbia) Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction order in Missouri v. BidenLeah Litman and Laurence Tribe’s Just Security article analyzing the decision Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “The Air We Breathe” by Apex Music from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/apex-music/the-air-we-breathe (License code: W8V6DMNKHYYQ26Y8)

From massive floods, to sweeping hurricanes, to raging wildfires, climate disasters seem constant. Last November, the United Nation’s climate conference, COP 27, grabbed global headlines when countries reached a historic deal to compensate vulnerable countries for loss and damage from climate change. It’s easy to see the scale of that loss and damage. Lives are lost, cultural sites disappear, and infrastructure like roads and bridges are destroyed. But other aspects of climate change and its impact remain hidden from view. For people with disabilities, climate disasters can mean being abandoned by family and friends. And accessibility barriers can mean people with disabilities lack equal access to basic needs, like food and shelter. People with disabilities are the world’s largest minority. And disability doesn’t discriminate – anyone can acquire a disability at any time, no matter who they are or where they live. Creating inclusive disaster and climate response benefits all of us.  To explain how climate disasters impact people with disabilities, and how response systems can be improved, we have Professor Michael Ashely Stein.Dr. Stein is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. He is an expert on disability law and policy and was active in the drafting of the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Show Notes:  Michael Ashley SteinHarvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) Just Security’s coverage of COP27 and climate change18:05 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Moving” by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/moving (License code: 6SUZDR0XMAYULP1B)

As the investigations and trials related to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol continue, convictions and sentences have piled up. More than half of those arrested have pleaded guilty, and among those convicted at trial, are leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.Though these groups became famous for their roles in the January 6th attack, they were active long before efforts to “Stop the Steal.” The Proud Boys, in particular, are on a mission to undermine the rights of queer and trans people across the country. But how have they gone from the insurrection to protests at drag shows? Insight from the hours of depositions and expert statements collected during the January 6th Committee’s investigation show a direct line from the Capitol attack to the Proud Boy’s current views on gay and trans rights. Because, for groups like the Proud Boys, that tout what they call “western chauvinist” values, securing Donald Trump’s seat in the White House was just part of preserving a power structure that depends on narrow constructions of gender and family structure. It’s a power structure that harms those who don’t fit into the mold of a Proud Boy.To walk us through how anti-LGBTQ views fit into the Proud Boys’ ideology, we have Jacob Glick. Jacob is a Policy Counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law. As an Investigative Counsel on the January 6th Committee, Jacob interviewed Proud Boys members for dozens of hours and heard their views directly.  Show Notes: Jacob Glick (@jhglick)Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection’s (ICAP) Pride GuidanceJust Security’s compilation of Expert Statements on Democracy and Political Violence, submitted to January 6th CommitteeMary McCord and Jacob’s Just Security article on anti-democracy schemes and paramilitary violence and Mary’s articleanalyzing seditious conspiracy charges Just Security’s January 6th Clearinghouse27:00 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Lion’s Roar” by “Yeti” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/yeti-music/lions-roar (License code: KKOXDIKNIPMGNR2U)

On Friday, June 9, a federal court in Florida unsealed an indictment charging former President Donald Trump with willfully retaining national defense information, refusing to return it, and obstructing related investigations. The 38 counts allege that Trump violated the Espionage Act, conspired to obstruct justice, withheld and hid documents, and caused false statements to be made to federal investigators and a grand jury.Espionage Act cases are complex and important. They often require prosecutors to balance the need to protect sensitive intelligence information from being disclosed at trial with a defendant’s constitutional and due process rights not to be convicted by secret evidence. And disclosure of classified information can expose critical sources and methods of intelligence, including human sources, to harm.Joining us to explain how Espionage Act prosecutions work, and what to expect in Trump’s case, is David Aaron. David is a Senior Counsel at the Washington, D.C., and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor with the Justice Department’s National Security Division. He’s prosecuted Espionage Act violations and has seen how the process works from the inside. Show Notes: David AaronRyan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)David’s Just Security article on the Classified Information Procedures Act Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen's Just Security article on the national security implications of the indictment Just Security’s Espionage Act coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

From Donald Trump to Joe Biden, presidents have made a lot of news for keeping classified documents in their homes and offices. Presidential classification and declassification is a mysterious process that often unfolds away from public view. President Trump even famously claimed that he could declassify a document just by thinking about it.Trump's comments raised an important question: What exactly is the process for presidents to classify and declassify information? The answer matters because classified documents can contain some of the United States’ most closely guarded secrets, including the location and identities of intelligence sources abroad. Declassification is equally important for promoting government accountability, and helping the public understand government policies and actions. To help us understand how the presidential classification and declassification process works in practice, we have Brian Greer and Wendy Leben. For nearly a decade, Brian was an attorney in the CIA's Office of General Counsel. And Wendy was a senior intelligence analyst in the Department of Defense for 13 years, including seven deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Show Notes: Brian Greer (@secretsandlaws)Wendy LebenBrian and Wendy’s Just Security article analyzing U.S. government classification and declassification processesJust Security’s classified information coverage19:20 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Backed Vibes” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/backed-vibes (License code: K8XOQNJSNLOU5C8G) 

This year, a key U.S. national security law is set to expire. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has many moving parts, but the gist is that it allows the government to collect the communications of foreigners who are abroad, to gain foreign intelligence information, including when those people communicate with Americans inside the United States. And it can do that without a warrant. In practice, this means that intelligence agencies can order email services, like Google and Yahoo, to hand over copies of the messages of targeted foreigners to intercept the phone calls, texts, and internet communications to or from a foreign target.In the past, reauthorization by Congress was pretty much routine, and some new modifications and procedural safeguards have been added over the years. But this year could be different. A series of recent government reports and court opinions have shown extensive use of Section 702 as a domestic surveillance tool by the FBI. There have been numerous incidents of FBI agents pushing, and sometimes breaking, legal limits on accessing the data of Americans that is “incidentally” collected as part of a Section 702 search. Politics are also at play. Some members of Congress, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, have said they oppose reauthorization. To understand how the Biden administration is thinking about the Section 702 reauthorization, Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman sat down with Chris Fonzone and Josh Geltzer. Chris is the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Josh is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor at the National Security Council. Show Notes:Chris FonzoneJosh GeltzerJust Security’s FISA Section 702 coverage36:55 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX) Music: “Eyes Closed” by Tobias Voigt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/eyes-closed (License code: XTRHPYM1ELYU8SVA) 

This week a U.S. public health measure known as Title 42 came to an end. The U.S. is supposed to allow people fleeing persecution to seek asylum. But Title 42 allowed the Department of Homeland Security to turn away asylum-seekers if detention centers lacked the room to hold them during the asylum vetting process. The policy made it difficult for migrants to even apply for asylum in the first place. They would often be released back into Mexico. But now, the old rules are back in place, and thousands of asylum seekers who have been stuck in limbo are poised to seek asylum again.The Biden administration is also rolling out a new set of policies designed to address asylum claims before migrants physically reach the U.S. border. It’s created a mobile app which people can use to schedule an appointment with immigration officials and the State Department is working on plans to open regional processing centers throughout the Western hemisphere.  The new measures could upend a simple idea at the heart of a complex immigration system: that people fleeing violence and persecution have the chance to find refuge in the United States. That change has massive implications for those who live in the U.S. and those trying to reach it.  To help us understand the end of Title 42 and what comes next we have Adam Cox, Michelle Hackman, and Cristina Rodriguez. Michelle is a reporter who covers immigration at the Wall Street Journal. Adam and Cristina are law professors at NYU and Yale respectively. They wrote a book called “The President and Immigration Law.”  Show Notes: Adam Cox (@adambcox) Michelle Hackman (@MHackman)Cristina Rodríguez (@cmrodriguez95)Adam and Cristina’s Just Security article analyzing the end of Title 42Just Security’s asylum coverageMichelle’s Wall Street Journal reporting  32:18 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

On May 4, 2023, a jury in Washington, D.C. found four Proud Boys leaders, including former Chairman Enrique Tarrio, guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Proud Boys were the “tip of the spear” in planning and carrying out the January 6th attack. They tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. To help us understand what the verdict means, what’s missing, and what comes next, we have Tom Joscelyn and Mary McCord. Tom was a senior staff member on the House January 6th Committee and a lead drafter of its final report. He is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously held senior national security roles at the Justice Department. Mary is a member of Just Security’s Editorial Board.  Show Notes:  Tom Joscelyn (@thomasjoscelyn) Mary B. McCordTom’s Just Security article analyzing the conduct of some January 6th defendants Mary and Jacob Glick’s Just Security article on anti-democracy schemes and paramilitary violence and Mary’s articleanalyzing seditious conspiracy charges Just Security’s January 6 ClearinghouseJanuary 6th Committee final report33:20 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

As fighting in Sudan enters its third week, rival generals have turned the country’s capital, Khartoum, into a warzone. Mohamed Hamdan, better known as Hemedti, and his paramilitary Rapid Support Forces are fighting with Abdel Fatah al-Burhan, who leads the Sudanese Armed Forces. For years, Burhan and Hemedti have wrestled for power and control of Sudan. But until now, they’ve been on the same side. In 2019, they teamed up to remove the country’s long-time President Omar al-Bashir from power. And in 2021, they toppled the civilian government for military rule. The latest fighting is a clash between two men, but it’s also the latest chapter in Sudan’s long fight for freedom. To help us understand the conflict, what it means for the people of Sudan, and how it will impact the region, we have Quscondy Abdulshafi, Suliman Baldo, and Rebecca Hamilton. Quscondy is a Senior Regional Advisor at the nonprofit organization Freedom House. He has over a decade of experience working on human rights and peacebuilding in Sudan and East Africa. Suliman is the Executive Director of the Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker, an organization that develops investigation and analysis of corruption in Sudan, led by Sudanese voices. Rebecca is a law professor at American University. But before that, she covered Sudan as a reporter for the Washington Post. Rebecca is also a member of Just Security’s Editorial Board. Show Notes: Quscondy Abdulshafi (@Qabdulshafi)Suliman BaldoRebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)Sudan Transparency and Policy TrackerSuliman’s Just Security article on how the international community can respond to the conflictJust Security’s Sudan coverage32:35 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The Supreme Court is back in the news and it's for all the wrong reasons. ProPublica reports that Justice Clarence Thomas has vacationed on private jets and superyachts all paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow. But Thomas didn’t disclose those trips. And his actions are just the Court’s latest ethics scandal. Last summer someone leaked the decision in Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. And the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court Historical Society – which is technically a charity – has raised over $23 million in the last two decades from private donors. The Society often hosts events where those private donors can meet and mingle with the Justices behind closed doors.That level of access to the Justices matters because each year the Court decides cases that impact everything from reproductive rights to gun control and the environment. The appearance that some people can buy influence on the court undermines the idea that everyone has an equal opportunity to have their case heard and fairly decided. In theory, there would be ethics laws in place to prevent a sitting Justice from accepting secret swanky vacations on superyachts and Adirondack hideaways. But do those laws really exist? To help us understand judicial ethics and what can be done to keep the Justices accountable, we have Caroline Fredrickson and Alan Neff.Caroline is a Visiting Professor at Georgetown Law and a Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. Alan recently co-edited Rule of Law this week for the American Constitution Society and is a former lawyer for the City of Chicago. They are both experts on judicial ethics and the judicial system.Show Notes: Caroline Fredrickson (@crfredrickson) Alan Neff (@AlanNeff)Caroline and Alan’s Just Security article on Supreme Court ethics  3:25 ProPublica’s reporting on Justice Thomas’ relationship with Harlan Crow 18:35 NYT article on the Supreme Court Historical Society (The Daily episode here) 23:25 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “The Rose Jaguar” by Aaron Paul Low from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/aaron-paul-low/the-rose-jaguar (License code: IKEHLJFJSB7OEKVS)

Civilians in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are living in a nightmare. In the past year, the Rwandan-backed March 23 Movement – or M23 for short – has raped and killed dozens of civilians in the DRC’s North-Kivu province.And this isn’t the first time. A decade ago this same group operated in the same part of the Congo, with funding and some military support from Rwanda. But back then, in 2013, the Obama administration used diplomacy and legal tools, like sanctions to pressure Rwanda to stop its support of M23. The group collapsed without that Rwandan backing. And many analysts thought it was gone for good. Until now. Rwanda has restarted its support of M23 and the group is clashing with the Congolese military, attacking civilians along the way.Only this time, the US response has been more talk and less action. The Biden administration has warned Rwanda to withdraw support from M23, but it hasn’t used the same diplomatic and legal tools that worked a decade ago. To explain the conflict in DRC, and what the United States can do to pressure Rwanda to withdraw, we have Daniel Levine-Spound and Ari Tolany. Daniel is a human rights lawyer and researcher who specializes in the DRC and South Sudan. Ari is the Program Manager for the U.S. Program at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), a nonprofit organization which works to prevent civilian harm.  Show Notes: Daniel Levine-Spound (@dlspound) Ari TolanyDaniel and Ari’s Just Security article on the M23 conflict and the U.S. response Just Security’s DRC coverageJust Security’s Rwanda coverage23:45 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Caravan” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)