RULE OF LAW 101 with Prof Alexandra Natapoff

Larry (00:06):

You might know this show by another name specifically for seniors, was where it all started. A place built on the idea that people who lived have a clarity that's hard to fake. That's still true, that's still us. But the conversation got bigger, the audience got whiner, and the cynicism turns out it's pretty universal. So we evolved, same sharp eye, same refusal, to not alone, just the bigger table. Welcome to The Enlightened Cynic.

Larry (00:52):

You are in the right place. Let's get into it. Welcome to the first show under our new name, the Enlightened Cynic. I'm your host, Dr. Larry Barsh. We often hear the phrase, the rule of law tossed around in news cycles and political debates, but for many of us, it remains a somewhat abstract concept. Joining us today from Harvard Law School is Alexandra Natapoff, where she is the Lee S. Kreindler Professor of Law. Professor Natapoffis a celebrated legal scholar, a former federal public defender, and a leading voice on how our legal system actually functions. Professor Natapoff is a 2016 Guggenheim fellow, a member of the American Law Institute, and a graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School. She's testified before Congress in numerous state legislative bodies. She's helped draft state and federal legislation. Her work appears frequently in judicial opinions as well as the national media. Her latest project, rule of Law 1 0 1, is a groundbreaking 10 part video series that brings the expertise of the nation's top legal minds directly to the public. Today we're gonna discuss why she's opening the doors of Harvard Law Masterclass to everyone, why understanding the Supreme Court is more critical now than ever, and how we can all better navigate the complex intersection of law and power. Alexandra, welcome to the Enlightened Cynic.

Alexandra Natapoff (02:52):

Thank you so much for having me. What is the rule of law actually mean in 2026, and what is the series trying to demystify?

Alexandra Natapoff (03:01):

So, the short answer is that rule of law is a foundation of any constitutional democracy like ours. It's an agreement that we're gonna run our polity based on law that we collectively pass, and not based on the brute exercise of power. Whoever has the most power, the most money, that's not how we're gonna permit our government to be run. We're gonna run it under the law pursuant to law. The founding documents sometimes put this as we are a government of laws and not of men. And what that means is that sometimes people with power are not going to like the outcome of that law. Sometimes we are not gonna like the outcome of the rules that we have agreed to abide by, and yet we so prize living under a government of laws and not of men, of people of power, that we will abide by the outcomes of those laws. And that is the heart of the rule of law. It's a very old concept. And one of the things we have seen recently are challenges to the entire infrastructure of our government, of our legal profession of our society that makes rule of law possible. And that's, that was really the impetus for the for the Rule of law teaching project.

Larry (04:34):

I was just going to ask you, what was the spark that made you decide now was the time to create this series? And, and even more importantly, more importantly, why was it a priority to release it free of charge to the public?

Alexandra Natapoff (04:57):

So part of my job is to teach my law students here at Harvard Law School about the rule of law. They're going to become members of the legal profession. Many of them will become judges, litigators, legislators. It's very important that lawyers understand the profound importance of rule of law, of the mechanisms that we use to ensure that rule of law truly works and that we all abide by it. I made these materials originally for my own students here at Harvard Law School to help them hear not only from me, but from constitutional law and legal experts from all over the country to enrich their educational understanding of this profound concept of rule of law, and specifically how constitutional law, which of course is just one piece of the law, but a very important piece, how constitutional law and supreme Court cases are part of this argument, debate, legal conversation that we have about rule of law.

Alexandra Natapoff (06:09):

And so in the past couple of years, but particularly this year in 2026, there have been so many public events, so many instances where pressure is being put on rule of law in our democracy from this administration within the legal profession. We see it in the courts, we see it in immigration. And so it seemed that this, at this moment, it was important not only for lawyers and law students to be having the conversation, but for everybody who is interested in preserving rule of law, a government of laws in the United States, to have access to the basic building blocks of this conversation. And so that, that was the impetus for releasing the project publicly. And the the impetus to release it free of charge is really very simple, so that more people can learn. A democracy only works if the people in the democracy, the voters, the citizens, the members of the community understand and buy in to the project.

Alexandra Natapoff (07:30):

And without information, without insight into how our democracy really works and how our rule of law really works, it seemed to me that we could not have the robust public conversation that we need to be having. And so I was actually very happy to have the opportunity and the resources. I'm very fortunate that I have the resources to be able to make these these educational materials and then share them. And my hope is that anybody who is interested in our democracy and the rule of law and having a government of laws and what that might mean, might be able to take advantage of these teaching materials that were designed originally for Harvard Law students.

Larry (08:22):

I'd like to play a brief video of yours. This

Alexandra Natapoff (08:26):

Is the Rule of Law Teaching Project 10 law professors teaching 10 important Supreme Court cases.

Video (08:34):

Campaign finance law, as we long knew it ended with Citizens. United, United States versus Morrison is a case about federalism judicial supremacy and gender discrimination. The result of Central Hudson was to enable what I think you can fairly call a corporate takeover of the First Amendment. In all of these ways, the Atwater decision has been a kind of quiet contributor to mass incarceration. Lasseter is New Relic. The deeper reality of American democracy is that we do not have a standalone fundamental right to vote as a privilege of our national Citizenship. Decisions about preemption speak to the scope of federal authority with implications not only for immigration, as in this case, but also for drug policy, safety and health regulations, education, environmental regulation, and other arenas of law. The decision in Obergefell is the result of decades of social movements, public education and litigation. And along the way, there was a lot more losing than there was. Winning On its face. Farmer might look like a modest doctrinal move, it's just picking a legal standard. But in fact, it may be the most impactful case in prisoners' rights because it set such a high bar to show a violation of the eighth Amendment. I know the Mark's rule might seem kind of wonky, a technical matter that only a lawyer would care about, but it actually goes to the very heart of our constitutional democracy and the meaning of the rule of law. Griswold is most famous for its articulation of the constitutional right to privacy and its support for personal and intimate choices. But we'll end by noticing that Griswold could have been decided on entirely different grounds based on principles of sex equality.

Larry (10:25):

So let me try to understand something before we talk further about this. The rule of law is essentially a shared agreement among participants in a democracy. Yes. Am I correct? Let's review some of the topics that are discussed in the video series.

Alexandra Natapoff (10:55):

So let me go back to your your definition. A shared agreement in a democracy, a to create laws that we agree to abide by. Everything else after that agreement depends on how we make and understand law. The project of law is in some sense the democracy project itself. And so understanding what law is, how it works, who makes it, who decides what it means, what does the Supreme Court have to say? What does Congress have to say? What does the executive have to say? All of this knowledge is part of understanding how rule of law actually functions on the ground in the United States, in our modern democracy and our students law students spend three years learning the ups and downs and ins and outs of this very deep and important body of knowledge. What these videos do is give everyone who's interested a little taste of what this knowledge looks like, how it works through the lens of Supreme Court cases.

Alexandra Natapoff (12:22):

So what you just saw in that trailer are 10 different national constitutional law and legal experts from law schools all over the country here at Harvard, but also Yale and Stanford, NYU, Northwestern, UCLA, Michigan legal experts from all across the board, each one talking about one very important Supreme Court case about which they are an expert for 15 minutes. And so my hope is that people who are interested in voting rights or who are interested in federalism, how does our federal government relate to the states or who are interested in same sex marriage or who are interested in policing? Can see on this list of cases a video made by an expert in that field who will walk them through one paradigmatic very important case, and they can get a taste of the conversation that we have about law, how it really works, not just as an abstraction, a promise that we make in democracy, but how the Supreme Court actually makes its decisions what those decisions actually mean for us in real life and in real time. And so that's what I mean when I say it's kind. It's a little bit of a mini masterclass in constitutional law that a person who has not gone to law school and who has not a lawyer, can nevertheless join, join in the conversation in these in these kind of pithy ways.

Larry (14:14):

Would any of the listeners know who these professors experts are?

Alexandra Natapoff (14:22):

They might or might not. These experts have written books about, for example, the electoral system for about the Supreme Court that they might or might not have heard of. And on the website itself, for the folks who are interested, you can see a little biography of each expert and and a link to their websites and their faculty pages so people can check out the ones that they may have heard of or who are writing and speaking in an area of expertise that they are particularly, particularly interested in.

Larry (15:08):

What is the URL of that website?

Alexandra Natapoff (15:11):

It is Rule of Law101.org

Larry (15:18):

We're, we're currently living through a period of intense scrutiny regarding the executive branch and the Supreme Court that many perceive as having a significant conservative bias. Why is it important we understand the concept and the consequences for all of us?

Alexandra Natapoff (15:43):

It's such an important question. One of the precepts of rule of law, especially in a diverse democracy where we do not all agree with each other ever is that the rule of law helps us navigate our differences. Which means sometimes we get what we want and sometimes we don't. And the fact that sometimes law comes out in a way that we don't like, does not mean that we throw the whole endeavor under the bus. We understand that sometimes our, the, our person of choice is gonna lose an election. That's how elections work. But we don't throw elections away just because sometimes we don't get the outcome that we want. It's a very important piece of the precept of rule of law. And we, and some people might identify as conservative, some people might identify as progressive. We obviously have partisan differences between Democrats and Republicans left and right.

Alexandra Natapoff (16:52):

But the idea is that we will have built a legal infrastructure for our polity that allows for embraces and encompasses those differences and does not shut anyone out just because we disagree with them. And so, sometimes in a legal regime like ours, we might we might see a Supreme Court or an administration that we don't agree with that is different. Disagreeing with the outcome of a particular case or a particular political view is different than undermining rule of law. And the fear that many people have these days is that the infrastructure that permits the conversation in the first place is under attack. And, and, and the difference between conservative and progressive does not capture that fear. It's not that sometimes that we don't agree with everyone. It's that the very infrastructure that permits us all to live in some harmony, in some discourse, in some conversation. I think the rule should be different. Let's talk about it. Let's have a, a, a democratic conversation that that infrastructure that we could trust is being eroded, and that is a path away from democracy, and that's the fear.

Larry (18:43):

And we don't deny the outcome of the legal election.

Alexandra Natapoff (18:51):

So, correct. So you're asking about, so there are some specifics that have flagged for people and have made people particularly nervous about our democratic infrastructure. And so one, maybe a paradigmatic one is the idea that we do not deny the outcome of an election just because we don't like the result that if the election is held according to the rules and the laws that we have agreed on, and that we have used literally for centuries, that we will live with the result. And so the idea that that that the administration, that people in the administration, that the president that other people are denying the result of an election is not just in a disagreement about left and right or conservative or progressive. It's going after the infrastructure that makes democracy possible. For, for folks who might decide to watch some of the videos, there are several election law experts who are sharing sharing their expertise about Supreme Court decisions, about election electoral decisions.

Alexandra Natapoff (20:10):

And some people may remember a case from many years ago called Bush versus Gore. And what happened in that case was the Supreme Court made a decision, a highly contested and disputed decision that put a thumb on the scale against the Democratic candidate Al Gore. And for the Republican candidate George Bush and election law experts remind us what happened when the Supreme Court did that, that Al Gore said, I believe in rule of law, the Supreme Court has made a legal decision. I don't like the outcome, but I am going to abide by that decision because that is the infrastructure that makes democracy possible, even though there are deep disagreements and disputes and accusations levied at the Supreme Court about this decision for, for many, many years afterwards. And so that the diff the difference between accepting a result that you don't like because you believe in the infrastructure and throwing the entire infrastructure under the bus because you don't like the answer, is the difference between democracy under rule of law, and and the government of brute power.

Larry (21:42):

Our audience probably remembers that case very well because it consists largely of people who have lived through many years of the Supreme Court from the Civil Rights Milestones of the sixties to today. Why is it <affirmative> important for this demographic specifically to listen to these interpretations of the Constitution?

Alexandra Natapoff (22:15):

I'll, I'd like to add, not only is it very important for this demographic to listen, but also to share their knowledge, to share what they know, what they remember. They have lived through decades of this precise conversation, this effort to craft the democracy that we have the diverse democracy that we currently have. And so I hope that by sharing these materials, particularly with people who remember Bush v Gore or who remember the civil rights era, or who remember all the ups and downs that we have been through as a nation to try to craft the polity that we have to try to build a better government, a more inclusive government, a more democratic and lawful government, that they will take this information and marry it to their own commitments, their own knowledge, their own recollections. Law is inherently historical. Many of my colleagues are themselves, not just lawyers, but also historians. You cannot understand law if you don't know where it came from. And so I hope that people will feel empowered and encouraged to use these materials not only as information for themselves, but also as a way of starting a conversation about their own insights, about our arc as a country, as a legal rule of law, democracy to the place that we have gotten to today.

Larry (24:00):

With everything that's going on today, do we need to relearn what we know about the Constitution?

Alexandra Natapoff (24:12):

That's a wonderful question. One of the conversations we have in a democracy is what is the role of our constitution that was written over 200 years ago by people very different from us, who lived in a world very different from us, in a world where people were enslaved and women could not own property? What does it mean to rely on a constitution written in those times for a modern democracy like ours? And that is a, a really robust and important conversation. Some of that conversation is reflected in the 10 videos that are part of the Rule of Law teaching project, and I hope people will notice the and, and take advantage of that thread. How should we interpret the Constitution today?

Alexandra Natapoff (25:11):

There are different scholarly approaches to the question. Some argue for more fidelity to what we sometimes call the original understanding of the Constitution on the theory that if we don't like it, we can amend it. Very difficult process to amend it, but we can, we have amended our Constitution in profound ways. Of course, the Civil War itself led to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that abolished slavery, and that established the right to vote and established equal protection of the laws for everyone in in the States. So we have amended the Constitution to change its nature because the old ways did no longer worked for our modern democracy. Others think that law is more is more of a living organism, that we are always making law as we go, and that we should understand the Constitution not as written in stone in a particular era, but that we are always engaged in the democratic work of reinterpreting it for our times, for our democracy, and for future generations. It's not that one answer is right or one is wrong, it's that this conversation is part of the rule of law conversation. How do we interpret the significance of our central legal documents? Is part of understanding how law works on the ground. And as I said, you'll hear when you listen and, and, and watch the videos, you'll hear these experts from across the spectrum talk about these very issues.

Larry (27:09):

What do we do now to preserve the Constitution to ensure that our administrations are abiding to the Constitution and not just overriding it at will?

Alexandra Natapoff (27:30):

So we all wish there was a magic button to make democracy work under pressure and under the challenges that that we are currently facing. But I can share with you how I think about it. I, I think that we do what we can do, each of us as citizens, as members of this community, as people who care about our democracy, and each of us has the ability to do different things. I think many people across the country were very moved by the response of the community of Minneapolis when ice swept in and it, and illegally swept people off the street in a violent and often illegal enforcement of immigration of immigration law, and the people of Minneapolis, they were not, most of them were not lawyers, most of them were not powerful. Most of them didn't have a lot of money, but they stepped up to preserve democracy. They helped their neighbors. They worked together, they spoke out, they engaged in protest, speaking of the Constitution, exercising their first Amendment rights to protest. They risked their own lives from the, from the smallest contributions within a particular neighborhood, within a particular school, a particular street to demonstrations that the entire nation watched. The ordinary people of Minneapolis

Alexandra Natapoff (29:19):

Did what they could do to preserve and advance our constitution and our democracy. And so I think that could be inspiration for us all. As we, so as we, we sometimes ask, what, what do you have in your pantry? Make dinner out of that. You don't need to become a different person to support democracy. You can work with your community. You can work in your school. You can work with your children or your grandchildren. You could have a conversation in a local bookstore that maybe you wouldn't have had before. From, from my perspective as a law professor, one of the things I can do is share knowledge. It was one, it was part of the inspiration for the rule of law teaching project because that is something that I can do. I can take knowledge and teaching from some of the best educators in the United States, and I can put them in a form that can be shared and then I can share it.

Alexandra Natapoff (30:29):

I can't do everything, but I can do that. I can write, I can teach, I can work with my colleagues as I am currently doing to to advance, to advance the law and to advance support for the law. I think each of us gets to figure out what it is, what do we have in our pantry, and what kind of dinner can we make with those ingredients. The smallest, let me put it differently. You never know what the impact of your contribution will be. Of course, I hope that the rule of law teaching project will help people, will be supportive, will be influential, which will, will help new things blossom. But I don't control that. All I can do is contribute and hope that it will be helpful. Sometimes the smallest things are the most powerful and dramatic, and the bigger fancy things may or may not have an effect.

Alexandra Natapoff (31:37):

So I hope people will not feel discouraged that they don't have a lot of resources, or that they aren't a lawyer or that they don't know a lot about the issues. We can all learn about them. We can all reach out to each other and support our learning, and we can do things together. And you might say that that is the legacy of the United States. It's 2026, it's the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, where people who are literally in a colony under the exercise of brute power by a monarchy that they did not agree with, got together and drafted documents and, and built a force to push back against a much greater power. And that model I think we can spend the year embracing, understanding and working together around,

Larry (32:45):

So as individuals, we should not despair about not having the power to do anything.

Alexandra Natapoff (32:53):

The very idea of a democracy is that each one of our votes count. The very idea of a democracy is that everybody in the polity matters. Not because you have money, not because you have power, not because you have a law degree, but because it's a democracy and it prizes and values the contributions of everyone in it. And I think sometimes we lose sight of that because we see on the internet, and we see on the news, and we we see such enormous exercises of power, political power, but also economic power, billionaires making decisions that affect the whole country. New technologies that affect all of our lives every day you know, from social media to ai. And we forget that the premise of democracy is that our contributions are still valuable. I, I'm not I'm not saying that it isn't daunting.

Alexandra Natapoff (34:09):

If this were easy, everybody would do it. Democracy is work and democracy is something that we all get to contribute to. But in times like this, I think it's worth, again, asking ourselves and asking each other, what might we do today that we didn't think about doing two years ago? And one of the really special things that I try to convey to my students as they are learning laws, they are learning this material is just how much you can build, how much you can create anew, even when it looked like the odds are very steep.

Larry (34:59):

Pretty much all of our listeners now are ready to start their first class today. Now, few quick questions on how they can get involved. Where is the best place for people to access the series?

Alexandra Natapoff (35:16):

It, the series as you mentioned, it's, it's free on the internet. Anyone can access it. Ruleoflaw101.Org. It's just your basic you know, your basic college class. It is also on on YouTube. The, the entire series is on YouTube, which means you can share links, you can send links to videos that you particularly like to anyone. The, the whole idea really is to make these materials available so that people can learn from them and share with them in ways that make sense for them. And then conversations about these about these cases, about these these experts. There are some additional materials on the website itself, links, for example, to scholarship written by these experts so people could start to read. And, and so I hope that this will be a beginning. I'm also in the process with my colleagues of creating more educational materials, which we hope to, to release and make public in, oh, in the next few months, so that there will be more and more resources in the public space for people who would like to become involved, like to become more educated in whatever ways makes sense for them.

Larry (36:48):

Will you let us know how and where those are

Alexandra Natapoff (36:52):

Available? I certainly will. I'll come back to you in a few months and we can do this again.

Larry (36:57):

Okay. That sounds wonderful. Thank you so much. This has been wonderful. Thanks for making the rule of law, something we can all understand and participate in. We'll have all these links to the rule of law in our show notes, so be sure to access them. Professor Natpoff, thank you again so

Alexandra Natapoff (37:26):

Much. Thank, again, thank you so much for having me.

Larry (37:29):

That's our show for today, and we're glad you were part of the conversation. If you enjoyed what you heard, hit subscribe and share it with a friend, a family member who'd appreciate a little sharp thinking and hard earned perspective. Until next time, I'm Larry Bars reminding you that experience matters, perspective is earned, and this conversation is just getting started. The enlightened cynic. Take care, everyone.