5-4 • Prologue Projects

Dive into a compelling legal battle with the hosts of the "5-4" podcast—Michael Liroff, Rhiannon Hamam, and Jay Willis—as they dissect the intricacies of the case Trump v. Anderson. This episode scrutinizes the State of Colorado's bold move to exclude a former president from the primary ballot, leveraging the 14th Amendment's lesser-known insurrection clause, and the subsequent legal repercussions at the national level.

The podcast offers an engrossing look at the nuanced Supreme Court decision that sees ideological lines blurred, with a unanimous verdict but divided justifications from the justices. The hosts explore the implications of the ruling, which suggest that barring Trump from running for office may not be feasible without new federal legislation—an outcome that hinges on a divided Congress. This episode reveals the complexities of constitutional law and raises poignant questions about the enforcement of the 14th Amendment's framers' intents versus contemporary political realities.

Discover a candid exploration of legal education with the latest installment of the "5-4" podcast, where hosts Leon Neyfakh, Peter Shamshiri, Rhiannon Hamam, and Michael Liroff take a deep dive into the world of constitutional law teachings. Their conversation navigates through the tribulations of current legal academia, pinpointing the disconnection between classic teachings and the dynamic nature of modern jurisprudence.

As they dissect a New York Times article addressing the influence of the Supreme Court's conservative tilt on legal scholasticism, the quartet sheds light on the seemingly outdated pedagogical approach adhered to by law professors. The discourse of the episode presents a compelling inquiry into whether the legal educational establishment is up to speed with the fast-evolving landscape of constitutional law or if it remains entrenched in long-standing but potentially obsolete doctrines.

Immerse yourself in the intricate legal fabric of presidential immunity with the 5-4 podcast, where Leon Neyfakh, Peter Shamshiri, Rhiannon Hamam, and Michael Liroff dissect the seminal Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Pivoting on the doctrine of separation of powers, this episode delves deep into the 5-4 decision upholding a broad interpretation of presidential immunity from civil litigation for official actions and explores the implications and rationale behind this historical verdict.

As the episode unpacks the contentious subject, it also sharpens the focus on the broader implications of governmental immunity and prospects of its misuse. The panel examines the divergent perspectives on accountability within the executive branch, reflecting on Justice White's poignant dissent and juxtaposing it with modern-day legal battles involving former President Trump. The continuing legal skirmishes over the scope and limits of presidential immunity cast a revelatory light on a constitutional gray area, one that remains as relevant today as it was at the dawn of the Nixon era.

In this episode of 5-4, join legal experts Peter Shamshiri and Rhiannon Hamam as they navigate the intricate waters of the American legal system, focusing on the Miranda rights and the pivotal right to counsel. The conversation delves into the mechanisms by which individuals in custody are shielded from compulsory self-incrimination, emphasizing the need for clear understanding before waiving these crucial rights. This discussion provides listeners with an in-depth examination of the safeguards meant to prevent the coercion of suspects during police interrogations.

The hosts explore the controversial Supreme Court case Maryland v. Shatzer, dissecting the established 14-day rule that forever altered the landscape of police questioning and suspect rights. They critically assess the implications of this rule for the protection against coercive police practices, questioning its potential to undermine a suspect's access to legal counsel. The podcast culminates with a strong message about the potency of the right to silence, offering sobering advice on the significance of requesting counsel in the face of law enforcement, underscoring the conversation with real-world examples of the perils that come with waiving one’s Miranda rights.

Dive into the spirited conversation on "5-4" where hosts Peter Shamshiri, Rhiannon Hamam, and Michael Liroff explore the formidable presence of the Federalist Society in legal circles and the urgent need for a left-leaning counterpart. As they dissect strategies to mitigate the Society's influence on academic campuses, the hosts underscore the importance of building a framework that plays to the strengths of progressive values and principles.

This episode urges legal scholars, professors, and politicians to play a critical role in combating the dominance of the Federalist Society. By promoting a progressive network that upholds diversity and social justice, the speakers advocate forging an institution that can provide a meaningful balance in the legal landscape. As they discuss the implications of this societal tug-of-war, the hosts call for a collective academic and political response to defend the integrity of legal representation and intellectual debate.