Advertise on podcast: DISCOVERY presented by UW Law

What really happened behind the scenes of one of the defining legal battles of the early social media era? In this episode of Discovery, we speak with Scott Mosko, lead counsel in the California litigation representing Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narendra against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Mosko takes listeners inside two cases surrounding the origins of Facebook, including counterclaims that ultimately led to a global 2008 settlement.  The episode goes beyond The Social Network's Hollywood version of the story, revealing moments that unfolded away from the headlines for the first time. Mosko also reflects on what litigation can teach today's law students and technology companies about protecting intellectual property.

Seattle takes center stage this summer as a host city for the FIFA World Cup 2026, one of the largest global sporting events ever held in the Pacific Northwest. While most fans are focused on the excitement on the field, an equally important effort is taking place behind the scenes: ensuring that the World Cup is conducted in a way that respects and protects human rights.  On this episode, we're joined by UW Law professor Anita Ramasastry, one of the world's leading experts on the intersection of business and human rights. She has served as an advisor to the United Nations Human Rights Council and currently serves as an independent human rights advisor to FIFA's Human Rights subcommittee.  Professor Ramasastry played a key role in developing Seattle's Human Rights Action Plan for the FIFA World Cup 2026, which identifies and addresses potential human rights risks associated with a major global sporting event — from labor protections and discrimination to public safety and the treatment of vulnerable communities.  In our conversation, we discuss why human rights have become an essential part of hosting the World Cup, what lessons FIFA and host cities learned from the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, and how Seattle identified its own unique challenges and opportunities. We also talk about the broader legacy of this work and the role UW alumni, students, faculty and staff have played in helping shape this groundbreaking effort.

Should parents face criminal charges for the violent acts of their children? On this episode of the Discovery podcast, we feature a thought-provoking conversation with assistant professor of law Shirin Bakhshay from UCLA Law. Centering on the landmark People v. Crumbley case, Bakhshay explains why the convictions of the parents of school shooter Ethan Crumbley represent a major — and potentially dangerous — expansion of criminal liability. Bakhshay unpacks the legal theory behind involuntary manslaughter charges against parents and why she believes the prosecution misunderstood both criminal law doctrine and modern parenting realities. Drawing on her psychology expertise, she also explores why parents are often poorly positioned to predict adolescent violence, especially amid rising youth mental health struggles, social isolation and widespread access to guns. Bakhshay also advocates for prevention-focused responses rooted in schools, mental health resources and community support rather than punitive prosecution after tragedy strikes.

Imagine that you are living in your car. One day, it's stolen for a joyride, abandoned and eventually towed away. You get a court order for the return of your car, but then discover that your very home, your 1991 Camry, has been sold for $175. Later, you find out that the towing company has the car back in their possession and holds it hostage for over a year, accruing $21,684 in storage fees.  Amanda Ogle didn't have to imagine it because this happened to her in 2017. To help navigate the bureaucratic nightmare, she enlisted the help of Kevin Eggers, J.D. '17, who had just graduated from UW Law and was providing legal aid through the Northwest Consumer Law Center. Ogle's case was Eggers' very first out of law school.  After a Seattle Times reporter wrote about the situation, Ogle was contacted by screenwriters who wanted to make her story into a movie. "Tow" premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and opened in theaters nationwide on March 20, 2026. Directed by Stephanie Laing, it stars Rose Byrne and features an ensemble cast including Octavia Spencer, Demi Lovato, Dominic Sessa, Ariana Debose and Corbin Bernsen. In this episode of Discovery, we talk with Eggers and Ogle about the towing dispute and their experiences with the real-life case turning into a movie.

In this episode of the Discovery podcast, Jevan Hutson, J.D. '20, incoming assistant professor of law and director of the Technology Law & Public Policy Clinic, discusses the article "Forget Me Not? Machine Unlearning's Implications for Privacy Law," which he co-authored in The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review. The article explores the intersection of generative AI, privacy and data protection law and focuses on "machine unlearning," an emerging tool designed to address privacy concerns. As generative AI systems increasingly process vast amounts of personal and sensitive data, the challenges they pose to privacy regulations are intensifying. Machine unlearning allows for the selective removal or suppression of specific data — such as personal information that individuals request be deleted — from AI models. This process aims to help organizations comply with legal obligations and policy goals, particularly in response to data subject requests for data deletion. Hutson assesses whether the legal and remedial aims of privacy laws can be reconciled with the technical capabilities of machine unlearning. Listeners are invited to consider the future of privacy law in an AI-driven world and the role of machine unlearning in preserving privacy rights.

In this episode of Discovery, we speak with Professor Peter Nicolas from the University of Washington School of Law about his new copyright law class, a case study of "The Wizard of Oz." The class debuted in winter quarter and included a mandatory group outing to "The Wiz" musical at Paramount Theatre. Since The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published in 1900, eventually entering the public domain, each new rendition raises fascinating copyright questions. The 1939 MGM film, "The Wizard of Oz," was separately copyrighted and introduced new expressive elements, along with reinterpretations like "The Wiz," a book and its corresponding Broadway musical which reimagined the story through an African American cultural lens. Nowadays we have spinoffs from the book Wicked which tells the backstory of the Wicked Witch followed by the Broadway musical and now a two-part film adaptation, beginning with "Wicked." Professor Nicolas explains how copyright law goes beyond technical doctrine to be a framework that determines who can tell stories — and how.

What does justice look like for children caught in the gun violence epidemic? And why do courts struggle to treat kids like kids when sentencing them for serious crimes?  In this episode of Discovery, we examine these issues with UW Law teaching professor Kimberly Ambrose and community member Aaron Faletogo who was incarcerated at the age of 16. In 2021, the Tools for Social Change: Race and Justice Clinic, directed by Professor Ambrose, helped Faletogo obtain release after over 25 years of incarceration.  Ambrose and Faletogo discuss findings in the groundbreaking article "Making Youth Matter" in the Washington Law Review. We also explore why young people carry guns, why adult courts often fail to understand adolescence, and how we have a shared societal responsibility for keeping children safe.  Join us for a powerful, essential conversation at the intersection of law, race and public health.

In this episode of Discovery, we speak with retired professor and Associate Dean Emeritus Hugh Spitzer, a distinguished scholar of constitutional and comparative law, about his recent Seattle Times op-ed, "This Baked-In Constitutional Conundrum Will Take Some Time to Repair."  Professor Spitzer examines how foundational features of the U.S. Constitution — particularly the disproportionate power of small-population states in the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College, along with the Constitution's rigid amendment process — have contributed to political polarization and democratic imbalance.  The conversation explores why these structures made sense at the nation's founding, why they pose challenges in today's vastly different political and demographic landscape, and what history suggests about the possibility of reform. He also reflects on the importance of civil engagement in protecting democratic institutions.  This episode offers a thoughtful, historically grounded examination of voting power, representation, and the long-term prospects for constitutional reform in the United States — inviting listeners to consider what it means to sustain a functioning democracy in the 21st century.

Courts are increasingly allowing employers to invoke the First Amendment's expressive association doctrine — originally crafted for civic and membership organizations — to avoid antidiscrimination laws in the workplace.  In this episode, we speak with our Toni Rembe Lecture speaker, Professor Elizabeth Sepper, who is known for her work on religious liberty, health law, equality and emerging questions about how public and private institutions are asserting religious or expressive identities. She recently visited UW Law to unpack her forthcoming article in the Michigan Law Review, "Expressive Association at Work," which she co-authored with James Nelson and Charlotte Garden.     Professor Sepper explores how courts are beginning to treat the workplace like a membership organization — sometimes without acknowledging the profound differences between civil associations and hierarchical employment structures. Her work shows why this shift matters for workers, for employers and for the future of antidiscrimination law.

In this episode of the Discovery podcast, we speak with Professor David B. Owens, assistant professor of law and director of the Civil Rights and Justice Clinic at the University of Washington School of Law. A nationally recognized civil rights litigator and scholar, Owens discusses his recent essay in the New York University Review of Law and Social Change, "The Equal Protection–Fourth Amendment Shell Game: An Essay on the Limited Reach of the 2023 Affirmative Action Cases, the Fourth Amendment, and Race Beyond Skin Color." He explores the Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action rulings, the limits of colorblind constitutionalism, and how race continues to shape policing and justice in America — drawing on both his lived experience and his work advocating for systemic reform.  Through this deeply personal and incisive interview, listeners are invited to confront the tension between constitutional ideals and real-world inequities — and to consider how law, experience and empathy must intersect if equal protection is ever to be what it promises.  This Discovery episode invites listeners to reflect on how constitutional interpretation, judicial philosophy and personal narrative intersect — and on what meaningful equal protection might require in practice.

In this episode of the Discovery podcast, we talk with Timothy Heaphy about the similarities between the 2017 Charlottesville riot and the January 6th insurrection. Heaphy led the House investigation into the January 6th attacks on the U.S. Capitol and recently authored Harbingers: What January 6 and Charlottesville Reveal About Rising Threats to American Democracy.  Heaphy reflects on his unique role in investigating both the 2017 Charlottesville rally and the 2021 Capitol insurrection, drawing strong parallels between the two events. We explore what these events reveal about the current fragility of American democracy. Heaphy emphasizes that both were driven by a deep mistrust in institutions and a breakdown in civil discourse, with social media playing a pivotal role in the spread of misinformation and mobilization.  Heaphy also reveals how we can avoid similar episodes of political violence in the future and protect our democracy. His ultimate message is that democracy is sustained not by institutions alone, but by people acting in good faith to uphold its ideals.

During the first wave of the opioid pandemic, the U.S. federal government encouraged states to establish prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) which use predictive algorithms to determine risk scores for patients. These scores, which can point correctly or inaccurately to substance use disorder (SUD), drug diversion, doctor shopping or drug misuse, have a risk themselves, as overreliance on PDMP information for clinical decision making often influences clinicians in their treatment, or refusal to treat, vulnerable people. In this episode, we speak with health law and policy expert Elizabeth Pendo, UW Law's senior associate dean for academic affairs and Kellye Y. Testy Professor of Law. Pendo, who co-wrote the recently published paper, "Challenging Disability Discrimination in the Clinical Case of PDMP Algorithms" in the Carolina Law Review, challenges PDMP algorithmic discrimination, which is far from regulated, as disability discrimination through the lens of federal antidiscrimination laws. Pendo also talks about the revitalization of UW Law's Health Law program through the upcoming launch of the Health Law & Policy Program.

We interview new faculty member Jeremiah Chin, an expert on children's rights and constitutional rights, about Held v. Montana, the first constitutional climate trial led by children in U.S. history. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 16 youth plaintiffs in December 2024 that Montana's fossil fuel energy policies and actions violate the children's state constitutional rights. An expert in children's rights and constitutional rights, Professor Chin joined the UW Law faculty in fall 2024. He is an assistant professor of law with a J.D. and Ph.D. in justice studies from Arizona State University. We discuss the landscape of children's rights, focusing on the youth plaintiffs' expression of their need for protection around climate change and how they have mobilized to participate in litigation. Dr. Chin also examines the strongest arguments for and against the verdict. Finally, he explains why this ruling was achieved more quickly than one still pending from a 2015 federal constitutional claim, Juliana vs. United States, in which 21 young Americans challenge the U.S. government's role in driving climate change and request declaratory relief from federal fossil fuel policies causing harm to their physical health and safety.

To open season seven of Discovery, we're discussing voter suppression through a social science lens with UW Law faculty member Danieli Evans. The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election is just weeks away and concerns around preserving voters' rights are ever-present as Americans begin casting their ballots. Poll taxes, strict voter ID laws and restrictions on mail voting are examples of policies limiting voting rights. But the carceral state — loosely defined as citizens' encounters with any type of criminal system — also inflicts harm on voters that can ultimately cause them to voluntarily withdraw from the voting process. Professor Evans joins Discovery to discuss her paper "Carceral Socialization as Voter Suppression" and why it's important not to ignore this phenomenon.

Some scholars call our politically fraught and hyper-partisan times "the age of impeachment." They claim the increased use of impeachment and removal proceedings signals an erosion in institutional norms, perhaps that we've even "overwhelmed" the use of impeachment and diluted impeachment of any significance. What does U.S. impeachment history tell us? The Constitution provides that treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors are impeachable offenses. A common thread that runs throughout presidential impeachment proceedings is an effort by legal counsel to try and define the scope of impeachable misconduct.  On this episode of Discovery, we discuss the history of impeachment with Professor Michael Gerhardt from the Carolina Law faculty, whose teaching and research focuses on constitutional conflicts between presidents and Congress. He has authored nine books, testified more than 20 times before Congress, and has served as an expert commentator for CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Gerhardt joined the Carolina Law faculty in 2005 and serves as the Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence. Gerhardt's new book, The Law of Presidential Impeachment, provides a comprehensive and nonpartisan explanation of impeachment's role in presidential accountability.