What does it mean when people start calling Donald Trump a king? And why are some political theorists — on both the right and left — exploring the possibility of leaving democracy behind? All this debate got co-host Tom Ginsburg thinking about an argument he’s been turning over in his head for years: could constitutional monarchy actually be the best form of government? Is it possible that constitutional monarchy actually strengthens democracy? Do monarchs serve as symbols of national unity that modern republics are missing? And is America’s obsession with political dynasties — the Obamas, the Bushes, the Kennedys — actually more monarchical than we’d like to admit? This wide-ranging conversation takes us from Thailand to the United Kingdom, from the founding ideals of the U.S. Constitution to the rise of populist leaders. Along the way, Tom and Claudia debate whether democracy is still holding strong — or if we’re inching toward something more authoritarian.

As student protests over Gaza sweep college campuses, one case is testing the limits of free speech and immigration law in America. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia student and lawful permanent resident, was arrested by ICE without a warrant and sent to a remote detention center in Louisiana—allegedly for his political advocacy. In this episode, we sit down with Khalil's lawyer Baher Azmy, who is also the Legal Director of the Center of Constitutional Rights, to unpack the disturbing legal maneuver behind Khalil’s detention: a rarely used immigration clause that gives the Secretary of State near-total discretion to deport individuals deemed a “foreign policy risk.” What does this case reveal about the future of dissent and academic freedom?

What happens when the country that helped design the international human rights system starts to dismantle it? In this episode, we speak with the former president of the U.N. General Assembly, Ambassador Dennis Francis, about the growing threats to global cooperation and human rights—from authoritarian drift, to shrinking U.S. commitments, to rising fears inside the U.N. system itself. Is this the end of the liberal international order? And if so, what comes next?

What happens when the government turns the law into a weapon? In these first few months of the second Trump administration human rights advocates, legal scholars, and university leaders are warning of a political landscape where funding is slashed, free speech is chilled, and legal institutions are bent to serve those in power. From defunding human rights initiatives to threatening universities and using the justice system for political retribution, many say the future of democracy is on the line. In this episode, we explore the growing fear—and defiance—among those on the frontlines. Can universities withstand political pressure? Will the rule of law hold against efforts to consolidate power? What does the future of human rights look like in this new environment, and can it adapt, change and survive?

This week, our co-hosts Professors Tom Ginsburg and Claudia Flores discuss bitcoin, the cryptocurrency soaring in both popularity and value. In the last month, the price of a single bitcoin has risen from around $70,000 to almost $100,000. Its cultural impact is immense, yet confusing and controversial. Those who associate bitcoin with MAGA conservatives and get-rich-quick day traders might be surprised to learn that some see it as a tool to protect human rights. Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation, is optimistic about the revolutionary power of bitcoin to enable resistance and challenge global structures of economic inequality. In this episode, we hear from him on how bitcoin is uniquely positioned to support global human rights efforts.

United Nations special experts have a crucial role in upholding international human rights law. These independent specialists hold mandates to report and advise on different areas within human rights as special rapporteurs, independent experts, or members of working groups. But how exactly do these appointments work, and what are the responsibilities, capabilities, and on-the-ground impacts of these experts? In this episode, we hear from our very own co-host, Professor Claudia Flores, member of the UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls and Professor Fionnuala ni Aolain, former UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism. Professors Flores and ni Aolain describe their work as UN mandate holders and how they address the most pressing issues in their areas of expertise.

Since our last episode on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza, we wanted to do an update on where international law currently stands in the conflict. This year, the conflict has triggered several legal cases at international courts, including at the International Court of Justice, which has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. In this episode, we speak with Aslı Ü. Bâli, a Professor of Law at Yale University who teaches international law and human rights in the Middle East, and Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on The Occupied Palestinian Territories.

We've all heard about different kinds of laws...but there is a higher order law that often gets overlooked—it's called Natural Law. The idea behind Natural Law is that all humans are born with an innate understanding of what's right and what's wrong, and that laws should be based on morality. In today's world, where there is no shortage of international wars, authoritarian leaders, human rights violations, and more, where and how can Natural Law be applied? On this episode, we speak with Mary Ellen O'Connell, Professor of Law at Notre Dame and an expert on international law. O'Connell has been studying Natural Law over her career, and gives a justification for how it could be applied in scenarios from the Russia vs. Ukraine war, international human rights, and more.

When it comes to discussion about the conflict in Gaza, there is an endless parade of commentators on both sides telling us what is right or wrong, legitimate or illegal, a crime or a justified attack, but in all that debate and discussion the actual international laws of war often get pushed to the sidelines. We’re planning to do a series of episodes on this conflict in the coming weeks, but we wanted to start by getting a baseline understand on the laws of war with an international expert. Oona Hathaway is a professor of international law and a member of the Advisory Committee on International Law at the United States Department of State since 2005. For decades, she’s been exploring the complicated legal questions that are coming to the forefront since October 7th which makes her the perfect guest for this episode.

The word apartheid gets used in many different contexts to indicate the severity of crimes across the globe. But its use is controversial because the word has a very specific definition in international law. Even more controversial is the concept of expanding the term to include gender. If there is one place on earth where it could be argued that a gender apartheid designation is needed its Afghanistan. Since the US withdrawal from the country, the Taliban have instituted a brutal repression of women. But is it gender apartheid? What would it mean for us to create this designation and assign it to Afghanistan? Does cultural relativism throw a legitimate wrench into this argument or does that take the concept too far? We discuss all these questions on this episode with Mohammad “Musa” Mahmodi, a Research Fellow in Law at the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale, Zahra Motamedi, an Associate Research Fellow at Yale, and Karima Bennoune, the Lewis M. Simes Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and author of “Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here”.

In recent years, book bans have swept the nation. According to PEN America, more than 4,000 books have been banned in some capacity in public schools since July 2021. Books that discuss topics like racial justice or have characters that identify as LGBTQ+ are just some of the examples that have received widespread attention. While book bans are not a new phenomenon, parents rights groups have accelerated their attacks on what books can be put on school's shelves, leaving a bigger question up for debate: Who should decide what books are available, and moreover, who has the right to read certain books? The American Library Assocation has been helping to support libraries as democratic institutions for decades by providing resources to librarians about what books to select based on the information needs of the communities to which they serve. In this episode, we speak with Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom and Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation. Caldwell-Stone discusses why book bans have increased in recent years, and why she says the right to read needs to be protected.

As kids, we all heard someone tell us that it's wrong to lie...but as we grew older, we realized that people lie all the time. Politicians, presidents, and even executives at corporations tell lies—big and small. As citizens, there are obvious exceptions where lying is wrong, for instance; perjury, lying on your employment application, or lying to get a bank loan. But do we have a right to lie? And if so, what are the boundaries? On this episode, we speak with UCLA Professor of Philosophy and Law Seana Shiffrin and George Washington University Professor of Law Catherine Ross. They discuss both the philosophical arguments against lying and the legal arguments against notorious lies made by President Trump and former Congressman George Santos.

We’re doing something special for this month’s episode. In October of 2023, we hosted a live recording here at the University of Chicago. Tom Ginsburg was joined on stage by renowned scholar Genevie Laikier to have a conversation about free speech on social media. In other words, it was very relevant to our current season about the right to free expression. We’re going to share that recording with you this month. We hope you enjoy and thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year.

Some might say one of the most important ways we exercise the right to free expression is through protests. And we’ve certainly seen groups all over the world using that right in the last few years, from the George Floyd protests in the U.S. to democratic marches in Hong Kong to demonstrations in Chile, Venezuela, Iran and Peru. On the surface this right may seem straightforward, but there are many thorny questions to grapple with: when does a protest become a violent violation of other rights, what does it mean to protest in the age of surveillance, does the content of the protest matter for it to be protected? On this episode, we speak with Jameel Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Journalism and Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

We all know the phrase: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” But is that actually true? Recent research in psychology has shown that words can cause a plethora of different harms. Should this make us re-think our approach to hate speech? In the US we’ve been hesitant to regulate hate speech, while other countries have been incredibly stringent. Which approach is right, and why? And, how do we even define what hate speech is anyway? To get some answers we sit down with Yale Professor Robert Post and Laura Beth Nielsen the Chair of the Department of Sociology at Northwestern University.

On the third season of Entitled, we're circling back to the first fundamental right: the freedom of speech. Lawyers and law professors Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg begin this season by peeling back the curtains of how this right is currently playing out at universities across the country. In recent years, there have been tensions — and intense clashes — around speakers invited to campus, what professors are allowed to say in the classroom, and what subject matter should even be allowed to be taught. Now, with many of these cases making their way to the courts, is free speech at universities entering a dangerous new era? In this episode, they speak with Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School; and Ben Wizner, Director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the ACLU; and Komi Frey, Director of Faculty Outreach at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

On our last season, we focused entirely on the idea of equality from an international perspective. But when it comes to domestic questions of equality, or equity, they often focus on an important and specific topic: race. And one of the leading voices in that conversation is Dr. Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi is most famous for his 2019 book "How To Be An Anti-racist". The book argues that the opposite of racism isn’t “not racist” but anti-racist. Meaning, rather than just being neutrally against racism you actively try to remove the inequality generated by racism and racism itself from society. This year he released a graphic novel version of his earlier history of slavery which is called "Stamped from the Beginning: A Graphic History of Racist Ideas in America" Although we missed out on having Kendi on last season we thought, with the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, that this was the perfect time to talk with him about how his views intersect with human rights, international law, the concept of the University and his thoughts on the recent case.

For the first time in decades, the future of abortion rights in the US is uncertain. With the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022, The Supreme Court has forced Americans to reconsider and fight for a new vision of a right to abortion should be. But it’s important to remember that debates about abortion don’t end at our borders. The end of Roe will have global ramifications for how other countries think about abortion rights but, as the US re-enters this international debate, are their lessons we can learn from how other countries have constituted, or failed to constitute, a right to abortion? To find some answers we spoke with Julie Suk, a Professor of Law at Fordham University, Catalina Martinez Coral, Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Paola Bergallo, Professor of Law at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.

In a world with personalized laws, each person would be subject to different legal rules and their own personally-tailored laws. For example, if you're a good driver, you could be rewarded for that good behavior with less stringent laws. Through this idea, and the acceleration of AI, technology could be used to comprehend our data from various places to create laws individual to us. These are some of the ideas that Omri Ben-Shahar writes about in his book, Personalized Law: Different Rules for Different People. In this episode, we speak to Omri Ben-Shahar about the questions and concerns that personalized law presents, and how it could be used in the future. Ben-Shahar is professor of law at the University of Chicago, and Director of the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics.

More than half a million people are currently homeless in the United States. It's a crisis that extends beyond California and is trending upwards in other states, too. Most jurisdictions in the US have no right to shelter, and the right to have a home at all is not a guarantee. But just across the border, Canada recognizes the right to adequate housing as a fundamental human right affirmed in international law. In this episode, we speak with Canadian lawyer Leilani Farha, the former Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, about how we ended up with a homelessness crisis and what remedies should look like. Leilani is also Global Director of The Shift, a housing initiative.