Judges, codes and institutional memory from the American Law Institute
Produced by the American Law Institute, Reasonably Speaking gathers judges and other legal figures, Justice Stephen G. Breyer among them, to talk through the nationwide injunction, disinformation about the justice system and the Court's authority. It also looks inward, through an oral history series with former Institute presidents and a Model Penal Code retrospective.
PRESS PLAY
Reasonably Speaking is the podcast of the American Law Institute, and it sounds like one: careful, courteous and interested in how legal institutions actually work. Episodes open with a standard disclaimer that the views are the speakers' own and nothing said is legal advice. Then the conversation begins, often led by David Levy, the Institute's president. The formats vary. There are panels, book discussions, one-on-one interviews and an oral history series, and some episodes are made jointly with Judgment Calls from the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. The courts themselves are the steadiest subject. In 'The Rise of the Nationwide Injunction and What It Means for the Courts', a judge from the Southern District of Florida recalls being the first judge assigned to the new Fort Pierce division, taking half the cases filed there while the rest went to other judges in the district. Public trust is the other half of the concern. In 'Judges Under Siege: Threats, Disinformation, and the Decline of Public Trust in the Judiciary', a joint episode with Judgment Calls, one speaker names Russia as the most active force in an information war against American democracy, with China taking a page from the Kremlin's playbook. The more pointed argument is that these campaigns exploit weaknesses of the country's own making, recasting legitimate grievances as proof of a system corrupt beyond repair. The partnership also produced a conversation with Justice Stephen G. Breyer about his book on the authority of the Court and the perils of politics, which Levy opens by tracing Breyer's path to the Supreme Court. Books carry other episodes as well. In a discussion of Philip Howard's Everyday Freedom, one speaker argues that agencies cannot afford the risk of a judge sinking a whole project over a single option left out of an environmental impact statement. That speaker would rather hand agencies more authority and make voters the check instead of courts, and says so plainly: the answer to bad decisions is to 'vote the bums out'. The Institute also examines itself, and that is where the show is most distinctive. 'Exploring ALI's History and Influence' marks an anniversary by looking back at the founding and at some of the Institute's most influential projects. One speaker lays out six themes on the Model Penal Code, from why it became a code rather than a restatement to its critics, the homogeneity of the Institute and the legal elite when it was promulgated, and revision in an era of mass incarceration. The oral history episode brings together two former presidents: Michael Traynor, the eighth, and Roberta Cooper Ramo, the ninth and the first woman in the role. One recollection runs from being underestimated by big-firm lawyers for practicing in New Mexico to Pete Domenici and Steve Schiff, two of the state's lawmakers who defended legal services for the poor against members of their own party. For a first listen, the Breyer conversation is the direct route to the Court; the oral history is the clearest view of the Institute.
Made for: Suits a listener who wants arguments over court power, public trust in judges and regulation laid out carefully by judges and legal insiders. It also fits someone curious about how the American Law Institute and projects like the Model Penal Code shaped American law.
What sets it apart: Because the American Law Institute produces it, the show turns the lens on its own house, revisiting the Model Penal Code, including questions about the homogeneity of the elite that promulgated it, and recording oral histories with former Institute presidents. Those episodes sit alongside current fights over the courts, some made jointly with the Bolch Judicial Institute's Judgment Calls.
The law affects our lives and our society in many unique and profound ways. Reasonably Speaking, produced by The American Law Institute, features interviews with legal experts on some of the most important legal topics of our time. Each episode takes you through the law in action, beyond courtrooms and casebooks. Whether you are a legal scholar or a concerned citizen, this examination of the relationship between our laws and our society will leave you with a better understanding of how we got here and what we should consider as we forge ahead.
David Levy makes you ask who benefits when a court order reaches beyond the people who sued.
Press play if you want
Short reviews from the PlayNext desk, based on the episodes we processed.
A grounded review of nationwide injunctions and the court structures that shape their reach.
Reasonably Speaking frames nationwide injunctions as a fight over remedy, power, and court design. The episode explains the device as relief extending to people similarly situated to the plaintiffs, even when they are not parties or class members, then tracks why presidents and…
A sober look at threats to judges, disinformation, and the courts' role in sustaining public trust.
Reasonably Speaking looks at the strain on judges and courts as threats of physical violence, corrosive political rhetoric, and disinformation weaken public confidence.
A focused review of agency power, judicial review, and the democratic cost of making courts the final check.
Philip Howard's Everyday Freedom uses agency discretion and judicial review to press a larger question: how much room government should have to act before courts can stop a project over an option left unexplored.
An anniversary discussion revisits the American Law Institute's founding and some of its most influential projects.
Reasonably Speaking marks the American Law Institute's anniversary with a measured look at the Institute's founding and several projects that helped shape American law.
A candid ALI history where legal services, institutional memory, and democratic compromise meet.
Reasonably Speaking frames ALI history as a working conversation about how legal institutions actually move: through careful projects, argument, compromise, and the patience required to publish anything durable.
Law, explained where the news gets complicated.
A murder case with America on trial.
Supreme Court law without the courthouse voice.
Legal fury, reproductive justice, court by court.
Animal cases, legal stakes, real consequences.
Samuel Bray says nationwide injunctions are an “end-run around class actions” and “issue preclusion rules.”
David Levy opens Reasonably Speaking and Judgment Calls with a panel on attacks on judges, cyber theft, and claims that courts are "corrupt or illegitimate." Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and Bridget McCormick describe physical threats, hacked court systems in Texas, and the need for public confidence because courts have no army or money.
David Levy hosts Philip Howard, Judge Edith Jones, and Nicholas Bagley on Reasonably Speaking to discuss Everyday Freedom, a Columbia forum book that grew out of a spring 2023 event.
Reasonably Speaking marks the American Law Institute's anniversary by tracing how the ALI moved from the 1923 founding and the first Restatement of Property to later codification work like the Uniform Commercial Code.
The ALI's death-penalty fight turned on Section 210.6, race, and a motion to withdraw the section.
David Levy of the American Law Institute interviews Jeffrey Stone, who chaired the 2014 University of Chicago committee that wrote the Chicago Principles, now adopted by about a hundred colleges.
Judge Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit tells David Levy that Justice William O.
Reasonably Speaking host David Levy opens with Gallup's June poll showing "quite a lot" of confidence in the Supreme Court falling from 36% to 25%, though almost 70% of Americans still express at least some confidence.
Interview with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer about his new book on the authority of the court and the perils of politics.
A panel of judges and court administrators discuss adapting in-person legal procedures like jury trials and mediations to digital platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Legal experts and corporate leaders discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the legal system and their organizations.
A panel of chief judges discusses how courts are adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic.