Modern Law Library

When Tracy Thomas first joined the faculty of the University of Akron School of Law, the dean assumed she must know all about their local heroine, Judge Florence Allen.

"She was literally staring at me from my classroom," says Thomas. "There was a picture of Florence Allen on one of our old concrete wall classrooms."

Born in 1884, Florence Allen would chalk up many firsts. In 1918, she became the first female prosecutor in Ohio. In 1920, she became the first female judge in Ohio when she won election to the Cuyahoga County Common Police Court in Cleveland. In 1922, she was elected to become the nation's first woman to serve on a state supreme court. And in 1934, she was appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the first woman to be a federal appellate judge. She even came within a hair's breadth of being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, by two different presidents.

But who was Florence Allen, and why did it take so long for her successors to make it to the bench? After her retirement in 1959, the next woman to be appointed to the 6th Circuit was in 1979. Although she joined the Ohio Supreme Court in 1922, another woman wouldn't serve on that court until the 1980s.

In her new book, The First Woman Judge: The Life and Legacy of Florence Allen, Thomas delves into Allen's suffragette connections, her political ambitions, and the two women who would be her life partners. She shares how Thomas navigated in a world of men, and built a base of support from women of both political parties.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Thomas and host Lee Rawles talk about the responses of Allen's judicial colleagues to her ascending the bench (one took to his bed for two days); her defense of another female judge during the Lavender Scare; and why she ended up having to hear so many tax and patent cases.

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.

"In most other countries, there are laws, criminal laws that prohibit the expression of racial hatred or incitement to racial hatred," says Samantha Barbas, author of Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma, in this episode of the Modern Law Library. "There are no hate speech laws in the United States, and that makes the U.S. a true exception, a true outlier in the world. And so my book was trying to get to the question, why did the U.S. take this unique path? How do we explain that historically? Where and when and why did we diverge from the path that was taken by most other countries?"

World War II prompted a barrage of hate speech legislation after it ended, but not in the United States, Barbas tells host Lee Rawles.

"We had just seen how totalitarian governments establish themselves through censorship," Barbas says. "There are two really important ideals that seem to be clashing in the post-war era. Many hate speech laws are proposed, but they are rejected or struck down on free speech grounds. So at this moment when Europe is adopting hate speech laws, America is going the other way: Proposing them, but then rejecting them, and that consensus in favor of freedom of speech is going to hold for several decades."

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barbas and Rawles discuss how American courts and society have dealt with hate speech issues in the past, and how the growing awareness of psychological harm has impacted public attitudes about hate speech. They also explore Henry Ford and the Dearborn Independent, D. W. Griffith and Birth of a Nation, the Streisand Effect, and a series of cases about Illinois Nazis.

Vanessa Ugatti is the True Worth Expert, a UK-based international keynote speaker, transformational trainer and coach, and author of How to Get Paid Your True Worth Ethically, Without Selling Your Soul.

Through her unique True Worth™ Methodology, Vanessa helps forward-thinking law firms and sole practitioners get paid their true worth ethically, without over-servicing, discounting or losing clients.

“Lawyers are quite fearful people, certainly in the UK, and I’m imagining it’s probably not that much different in the States,” Ugatti tells Modern Law Library host Lee Rawles. "They're driven by fear. Fear of losing the client, fear of getting in trouble with their board. Just fear. And so they'll tend to focus on doing the legal work at the expense of the business–that comes second–and the expense of themselves."

In her new book, How to Get Paid Your True Worth Ethically: Without Selling Your Soul (and Keeping Your Clients Happy!), Ugatti shares her methodology, based on the acronym TRUE WORTH.

"Getting paid your true worth is not just about making enough revenue to have a sustainable life and business," says Ugatti. "It's also to make sure that you are well, you can supply the right work to your clients, and you can give them the level of service that they need."

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Ugatti outlines what each letter of TRUE WORTH stands for, and discusses her own journey towards having the confidence to value herself properly.

In Silicon Valley, a "unicorn" is a private startup with a net worth of $1 billion. As the term suggests, these were once incredibly rare creatures. Most startups would go public within 4-7 years, long before they had a $1 billion valuation. But two key pieces of legislation made the rare into the rampaging, starting in 1996.

In her new book, Untamed Unicorns: Why Startup Finance is Broken and How to Fix It, Renée M. Jones warns that by staying private and shielded from oversight and disclosure, these startups could be endangering the stability of our financial system.

Jones, who served as the director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Corporation Finance under President Joe Biden, shows how these tactics were used (and misused) by startups like FTX, WeWork, Uber and Theranos.

"One of the big concerns is that startups are taking advantage of the secrecy to engage in, we could call it 'antisocial' or 'unsocial' behavior, but there are not really any mechanisms for the public to really see what's going on," Jones tells Modern Law Library host Lee Rawles. "If Theranos's investors and directors understood that they were going to have to go public and prove that the product worked, they would've been more demanding on Elizabeth Holmes most likely, and they wouldn't have been able to get away with all of those lies."

A big concern Jones has is with the recent push by private equity companies to allow regular retail investors and 401K plan managers to invest in these opaque and risky private startup companies.

"That includes private equity, it includes infrastructure. It could even include crypto. Again, these are illiquid assets," says Jones. "There's no ready market for those shares. And they're high risk assets and there's not a lot of information to even know, 'What am I actually invested in?' "

"If the Department of Labor's plans are adopted, you're going to have to really work hard to avoid having any private equity in your 401k plans," Jones warns. "There's a risk that these overvalued assets are going to be transferred from professional investors who can act to protect their interest to sort of your average, unsophisticated 401k saver."

In this episode, Jones shares her advice for reforming the oversight of these companies, warning signs that financial novices should be on the look for, and introduces a new creature to the financial bestiary: the centicorn.

For this year's summer reading recommendations, host Lee Rawles shares three recommended reads, three books on her to-be-read pile, and three TV shows she's enjoyed. The recommended reads are all fiction this time around, ranging from a spooky contemporary, to a historical novel about the Black Death, to a frothy sweet romance novel. Her to-be-read pile includes a Danish book about time loops, a history of the world in 12 shipwrecks, and a romantic fantasy book with the tag line: "Two heroes. One brain cell."

After her pop culture picks, this episode includes a re-airing of a May 2025 interview with Richard Susskind about his book How to Think About AI: A Guide for the Perplexed. There have been so many developments in the AI landscape in the year since it first aired that it's worth listening back to Susskind's predictions and warnings to see what's already come true and what has changed.

Recommended Reads:

•

The Children, by Melissa Albert

•

The Last Hours and The Turn of Midnight, by Minette Walters

•

The MASH Up, by Laura Marie Meyers

To Be Read:

•

On the Calculation of Volume I, by Solvej Balle

•

A History of the World in Twelve Shipwrecks, by David Gibbons

•

Bromantasy, by Maire Roche

Recommended Watches:

•

Star City, on Apple TV

•

Silo, on Apple TV

•

The Other Bennett Sister, on Britbox

In January 1800, Elma Sands's dead body was found in a New York City well. The case has captivated people ever since, not least because in the resulting trial, defendant Levi Weeks was represented by Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and a future Supreme Court justice.

The Girl from Greenwich Street: A Novel of Hamilton, Burr and America's First Murder Trial is a historical fiction novel by Lauren Willig. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, she explains how four years before their fatal duel, Hamilton and Burr came to be co-counsels on a murder case.

"The New York Bar was perishingly small in 1800. And in fact, Burr and Hamilton were co-counsel on a complex commercial litigation at the exact time," says Willig. "So people were constantly–it's like swing your partners, do-si-do. They were always working together, working against each other. It was just the way the bar worked in 1800."

The defendant, Levi Weeks, lived in the same boarding house as Sands, a hatmaker whose cousin owned the house. The prosecution contended that Weeks had seduced Sands with a promise of marriage, then dumped her body in the Manhattan Well. His trial was the first murder trial in America to have a court transcript, thanks to a clerk who'd recently learned shorthand. This transcript gave Willig a wealth of witness testimony to draw on when fleshing out her characters.

"One of the things that drove me nuts when I was researching this case was how little attention has been expended over the years in trying to figure out anything about Elma Sands, the murdered woman," Willig tells Rawles. "There are some big personalities and really big names involved in the trial itself. And people are so eager to get into the courtroom with Hamilton and Burr that they just trample over Elma. And she gets flattened into one of two archetypes. Either she's the innocent young maiden who's been seduced and betrayed, which is how the prosecution portrays her in the trial, or she's a melancholy laudanum-addicted nymphomaniac, which is how the defense tries to portray her."

"And I think the reality of Elma was a lot more complicated than those flat depictions would have us believe."

Willig and Rawles also discuss her time at Harvard Law, where she signed a contract to write her popular Pink Carnation series as a 1L, and then her time at Cravath, Swain & Moore, trying to balance being a published romance writer and lawyer.

"I had to make a choice, try to continue to juggle or go all in on being an author. And I left Cravath and my partner mentor came up to me and said, 'Well, what took you so long? I would've left sooner.' "

Environmental law in the United States can be a double-edged sword.

"I think that when people think about environmental law, very frequently what they mean is environmental protection, and what that misses is the other side of the coin, that there is a whole lot of law that is meant to exploit the environment," says law professor Brig Daniels.

When Daniels and his writing partner Alejandro Camacho looked at the literature available on the development of environmental law in the United States, they found it lacking.

"Most sort of focus only on environmental protection laws emerging from the 1970s or possibly the progressive era, missing frankly centuries of legal history that drove exploitation," says Camacho.

They hope to remedy this with their new book, Lessons for a Warming Planet: A Vital History of US Environmental Law.

From colonial expansion that deprived Native Americans of their ancestral lands to modern day battles over the Clean Air Act, Lessons for a Warming Planet offers a broad history of how environmental law has been developed. Change can happen gradually, or all at once. Camacho and Daniels have identified five different eras with dominant ideologies, some pushing towards protection and others towards exploitation. But in all eras, there were elements of both, the authors say.

"It isn't just a black and white sort of binary of any of these eras," Camacho tells host Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library. "And of course, what often happened is that an undercurrent in any given era becomes the dominant era in a subsequent era."

The latest era of environmental law is one of contention, without a dominant force yet emerging. Lessons for a Warming Planet warns that either exploitation or protection could hold sway in the next era.

"The thing that I hope that people understand is that looking back, one of the things that is so prevalent is that we didn't get the history that we had due to luck," says Daniels. "A big chunk of way we got our history was due to effort."

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Camacho, Daniels and Rawles discuss the Homestead Act, Cuyahoga River fires, and what Nixon really thought of pesky environmentalists.

When Shaun Ossei-Owusu looked around at his classmates at UC Berkeley School of Law, there were many upper middle class children of lawyers who were coming straight from their undergraduate degrees. There were not many people like him, a child of Ghanaian immigrants who grew up in an impoverished South Bronx community and was now finishing his PhD as a returning student.

That background and his academic training gave him a different perspective on the law school curriculum. For example, his Property Law class was mostly focused on the ins and outs of titles and transfers.

"It was strange to me, particularly being going to school at Berkeley, how little the class said about homelessness," Ossei-Owusu tells host Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library. "We have about 750,000 people in this country who are unhoused in any given night. And this is the course, Property Law, that's most directly concerned with how we organize access space and shelter. And the course doesn't say much about homelessness. And so I felt that that was strange, but I didn't want to be the student in class saying, 'Well, why aren't we talking about this?' "

Ossei-Owusu went on to practice healthcare enforcement law at Sidley Austin, and worked for the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia. His time as a litigator and public interest lawyer gave him a look at how law school principles fared in real world situations.

"Lawyers are implicated in many of the hot-button issues of the day, and much of that is tied to the ways that we train lawyers in law school to distance legal reasoning from social and moral consequences–and the ways they bring that habit into legal practice, whether it be BigLaw, public interest lawyering, or government lawyering," Ossei-Owusu says.

It's something he now thinks deeply about as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who focuses on criminal justice, social welfare and professional responsibility. In Law on Trial: An Unlikely Insider Reckons with Our Legal System, he calls out the ways this early training can result in further injustice and inequality for society.

"Professional ethics say your job is to primarily serve clients, which creates an inevitable distance between what lawyers do and who pays the price," writes Ossei-Owusu in Law on Trial. "The result is a system that trains smart people to engineer brilliant solutions while staying disconnected from the human wreckage they may leave behind."

In this episode of the podcast, Ossei-Owusu and Rawles talk about the hard truths of public interest legal work, how regulatory work can sometimes have more impact than litigation, and and how good intentions alone cannot erase harm.

The Third Amendment to the Constitution forbids the quartering of troops in Americans' houses. It's a reminder of how uneasy the people of the country have been about the domestic deployment of our soldiers. There are robust rules about how the military can be used on American soil, but how did those rules come about?

It's a question that National Guard officer Jonathan Bratten hoped to help answer in Forging the Framework: Evolving Law, Policy, and Doctrine for the US Military's Domestic Response, which he edited and contributed to as one of the authors.

"It was really cool to see the way that the roots of our processes are built into the colonial era, just as the roots of a lot of our frictions are built into the colonial era," Bratten tells Modern Law Library host Lee Rawles.

Forging the Framework, which is available for free from the Army University Press, looks at how different periods of American history shaped how the military operates on American soil today. As a country that has not faced many invasions, the bulk of domestic military operations have been to respond either to civil unrest or to natural disasters.

"When you look at how this affects those who serve, I just think about the number of people who got called off of the COVID-19 mission, where [you were] helping your community members to go deploy, to protect, go into support of law enforcement during the George Floyd protests," says Bratten. "There's just that weird duality that exists in the Guard and these experiences sort of ripple through."

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Bratten and Rawles dive deep into the Pullman Strike, Posse Comitatus, slave revolts, the rewards of disaster response and the difficulty of convincing militiamen to confront their rioting relatives.

Download Jonathan's book here.

Coming across the right book at the right time can make all the difference, says Sherry Thomas, author of the popular Lady Sherlock series. In her case, picking up a historical romance from the library led to her writing career.

"Two years into my career as stay-at-home mom, I grabbed a historical romance, which I devoured growing up," Thomas tells the Modern Law Library's Lee Rawles. "I grabbed a historical romance from the library, took it home and was going to spend my son's nap time enjoying it. But it turned out that I did not enjoy that book at all. In fact, I was kind of furious at it because I didn't enjoy it at all. And I spent the entirety of my available time that day on that and did not get any pleasure in return. So very seldom does this ever happen to me. But on that day, I was kind of angry. And by the time my husband returned home from work, I said to him, 'I am going to write historical romances.'"

Thomas did successfully publish several historical romances, then shifted genres to historical mysteries, publishing eight books in her best-selling Lady Sherlock series. The ninth will be released in the fall. Her newest release is a contemporary mystery, The Librarians, prompted by a suggestion by her publishers. "They specifically said, 'We want this to be The Thursday Murder Club, but with librarians,' " says Thomas.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Thomas shares more about her writing journey, how she came up with her Charlotte Holmes character, her love of libraries and her tips for other would-be mystery writers.

It's time for the first official meeting of the Modern Law Library Book Club, and Lee has invited on her friend (and go-to Nixon expert) Victor Li to talk about his experience reading the 1979 bestseller The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. As both a lawyer and journalist, Victor gives his thoughts on how Woodward and Armstrong were able to pierce the secrecy of the Supreme Court and show the behind-the-scenes wrangling as Nixon's newly-appointed chief justice, Warren Burger, took over from famed liberal Chief Justice Earl Warren. Up next, we'll be discussing Chapter 1, the 1969 Term, and we want to hear from you!

Email your comments or a voice message to modernlawlibrary@legaltalknetwork.com to appear on a future episode.

Check out our discussion group on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1285340-modern-law-library

Purchase your copy of The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court: https://amzn.to/4cRQivF

Your smartwatch tracks your heart rate and counts your calories. Your Ring camera lets you know when a package has been delivered. The GPS in your car smoothly directs you to a restaurant you've never been to before.

We've grown used to getting a technological assist for everything from finding our keys to checking where our children are at curfew. But the consumer electronics which can make our lives easier can also be used by the government to track and prosecute us–and Fourth Amendment protections haven't been keeping up.

Prof. Andrew Ferguson of George Washington University Law School has long been an advocate for digital privacy, and in his new book, Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance, he hopes to kick off a movement to protect Americans from government intrusion.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Ferguson and host Lee Rawles talk about cases where people's device data wound up being used against them, how personal information is being sold by data brokers, and how the Wiretap Act could point the way forward for future data privacy protections. Ferguson also shares tips on how to sabotage your data and explains the Tyrant Test.

For more than a decade, the Modern Law Library has been chatting with authors about their books. But there haven't been many opportunities to talk directly with our listeners, and we want that to change. We are so excited to announce that we are launching a monthly book club series, which will appear in your normal podcast feed.

This year, we are going to be diving into The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. This book made waves when it was released in 1979, giving readers an unprecedented look into the U.S. Supreme Court chambers. Covering the 1969 to 1975 terms, The Brethren exposed the internal debates over matters like the Pentagon Papers and Roe v. Wade.

Each month, we will be reading a section of the book and inviting on a guest to discuss the issues raised. To be ready for the first book club meeting at the end of March, read the introduction and prologue!

We are hoping to hear from you, so if you have a comment about the book or want to share your experiences with it, email us a written message, video or audio recording to modernlawlibrary@legaltalknetwork.com.

You can purchase a copyhere and join in the discussion in our Goodreads group athttps://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1285340-modern-law-library

Robert H. Jackson was not an easy man to know, but "I found being in Robert Jackson's company on the whole a great pleasure," says G. Edward White, author of the new biography Robert H. Jackson: A Life in Judgement.

A longtime ally of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jackson served as both Solicitor General and Attorney General before FDR nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, he often pined for his previous life as a small-town litigator in Jamestown, New York. A solitary worker by nature, Jackson did not relish the collegiate aspects of the court, and his influence was therefore limited.

"Jackson was nominally gregarious, active, fun-loving, witty pleasant–but at the same time, he was remote," White tells Modern Law Library's host Lee Rawles. "In some ways, his gregariousness was a barrier to maybe a closer understanding of him."

But as a litigator and as a justice, Jackson made important historical contributions.

One major such contribution was in establishing the format and location of the post-World War II international military tribunals of Nazi leaders, now known as the Nuremberg Trials. Jackson took a leave of absence from the U.S. Supreme Court to be the country's lead negotiator as the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union debated how tribunals would take place. He then served as the United States' chief prosecutor.

White and Rawles also discuss the roadblocks that have prevented Jackson from being better known in legal history; how Justice Felix Frankfurter tried to protect Jackson's post-death legacy; and Jackson's controversial cross-examination of Nazi politician Hermann Goering.

In honor of the Olympics, White (who has written books on baseball and soccer) also shares his perspective on the benefits that athletics brings to lawyers.

A foundational principle of Anglo-American law is that "a man's house is his castle." It establishes rights ranging from privacy to justifiable homicide. But what about when your castle is another person's workplace? What rights do they have?

In Bringing Law Home: Gender, Race and Household Labor Rights, Katherine Eva Maich examines the history of labor protections for nannies, housecleaners and other household employees, and compares how domestic workers fare under the laws in New York City and Lima, Peru.

In this episode, Maich and the Modern Law Library's host Lee Rawles discuss human trafficking, worker rights and responsibilities, the impacts of slavery and colonialism on the Global South, and the real human relationships that develop between employees and employers within the home.

In the movie 1973 film Walking Tall, Sheriff Buford Pusser is a heroic law enforcement officer in small-town Tennessee whose fight against the Dixie Mafia leads to an ambush and shooting that left his beloved wife Pauline dead.

The movie and its sequels and remakes made Pusser, who died in a 1974 car crash, into a folk hero. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson played him in the 2004 Walking Tall remake. The Pusser legend became a cottage industry for Adamsville, Tennessee, where the Buford Pusser Home and Museum is based.

Mike Elam, a former law enforcement officer, started researching Pusser's life as a hobby back in the 1970s. Once the internet became an avenue for exploration, "I started a social media page and I was very much a fan of Buford Pusser at that time," Pusser tells Modern Law Library host Lee Rawles. "And it was one of those things where I got to researching it and learned far too much for my own liking, because I did not like the man I saw as opposed to the one that was in the movie."

Elam's decades of research and interviews with people who had encountered Pusser led to a book, Buford Pusser: The Other Story. It also led to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations reopening the case into Pauline Pusser's murder and exhuming her body. In 2025, they announced that the investigation revealed details that pointed to one suspect: Buford Pusser himself.

In this episode, Elam discusses his long investigation, tips for other true crime citizen detectives, what he thinks now about the way Buford Pusser has been memorialized–and how he found the gun that killed Pauline.

The idea that prisoners should be treated humanely was discussed by Enlightenment Era aristocrats, "but the idea that they are people who are peers is new," says Yale Law professor Judith Resnik.

"As Democratic norms turned us all into equal citizens, equal persons in a jurisdiction, the question of government's relationships in courts, policing, schools and prisons changed over the last hundred years," says Resnik, author of Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Resnik walks host Lee Rawles through centuries of discussion about how punishments are deemed to be permissible, from a trial about whipping prisoners in Arkansas to the League of Nations' effort to develop minimum standards of treatment in prisons worldwide.

"People who run prisons have a very challenging time, and there's a body of data growing that people who work in prisons, like people who live in them, have higher stress, heart attacks, blood pressure, suicide rates," Resnik tells Rawles. "These are terrible environments of concrete and metal and noise and often dirt and violence. In the United States, many people who are in detention have had mental health issues and behavioral issues of significant kinds. And when you take people with limited training, often with staffs that are too thin, interacting with overcrowded facilities of metal and concrete, with limited resources, you end up generating scary places for everybody.

"So one of the kind of puzzles, if you step back, is how a thing called corrections, that promises safety, has generated institutions that are deeply unsafe for the people who live and work in them."

Looking for something to occupy yourself over the holidays, or to kick off your 2026? Lee Rawles is joined by her fellow Legal Talk Network hosts Stephanie Everett of the Lawyerist podcast and Conrad Saam and Gyi Tsakalakis of Lunch Hour Legal Marketing to share what books, TV shows and movies they enjoyed this year. They also share some of their own resolutions for 2026–and reveal a special new project for the Modern Law Library, coming soon to your podcast feed.

December 8th marks the 45th anniversary of John Lennon's death in 1980. In this special rebroadcast of Modern Law Library, we're looking back at how his immigration helped expose corruption within the Nixon administration and rewrote the immigration process. His attorney, Leon Wildes, sat down with Lee Rawles and his son Michael Wildes to discuss what the case and the legal legacy Lennon left behind.

-----

When immigration attorney Leon Wildes got a call from an old law school classmate in January 1972 about representing a musician and his wife who were facing deportation, their names didn’t ring a bell. Even after meeting with them privately at their New York City apartment, Wildes wasn’t entirely clear about who his potential clients were. He told his wife that he’d met with a Jack Lemon and Yoko Moto.

“Wait a minute, Leon,” his wife Ruth said to him. “Do you mean John Lennon and Yoko Ono?”

What Wildes didn’t know when accepting the Lennons’ case was that he and his clients were facing a five-year legal battle which would eventually expose corruption at the highest levels of the Nixon administration and change the U.S. immigration process forever. His account of that legal battle is told in “John Lennon vs. the USA: The Inside Story of the Most Bitterly Contested and Influential Deportation Case in United States History.”

Leon Wildes and his son Michael (now a managing partner at the firm his father founded, Wildes & Weinberg) joined the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles to discuss the legacy of the case and the effect it’s had on the entire family.

Mentioned in This Episode:

John Lennon vs. The U.S.A.: The Inside Story of the Most Bitterly Contested and Influential Deportation Case in United States History