Dylan Penningroth

Sam is away this week, dear listeners—presumably offsomewhere arguing with older Americans about why they shouldn’t vote—leaving David to talk bankruptcy with David Skeel. (The two Davids rejoice!) In this week’s episode, we turn to municipal insolvencyand the largest government debt restructuring in American history. David Skeel, the S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, joins the pod to discuss his new book: Promise Land: The Inside Story of the Puerto Rico Debt Crisis. Drawing on hisexperience serving on (and chairing) Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board during its bankruptcy-like Title III process, the book combines Skeel’s deep expertise in bankruptcy law with a rich account of the conflicts and compromises among bankruptcy lawyers, judges, local and federal officials, Puerto Rico’s citizens, and bondholders of various stripes. Skeel walks us through the specifics of the crisis: howPuerto Rico got into so much fiscal trouble, the island’s appetite for borrowing, and how federal disaster aid shifted the balance of power between the oversight board and the local government. The two Davids also tackle broader questions about municipal bankruptcy, revisiting Skeel’s support for allowing states to file for bankruptcy, his earlier criticism of how creditors were treated in Detroit, whether pensioners should receive more than bondholders, and how much discretion bankruptcy judges should wield. Finally, Schleicher presses Skeel on the controversial COFINA bonds, the major legal questions left unanswered by settlements, and the struggle to restructure Puerto Rico’s electric utility. They close by considering whether Puerto Rico offers a preview of future American fiscal crises and what the optimal design for municipal bailouts looks like. Referenced Readings Promise Land: The Inside Story of the Puerto Rico DebtCrisis, David Skeel (2026). Debt’s Dominion: A History of Bankruptcy Law in America, David Skeel (2001). In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local BudgetCrises, David Schleicher (2023). Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt, David Skeel, The Weekly Standard (2010). A Bankruptcy Law—Not Bailouts—for the States, David Skeel, WSJ (2011). States of Bankruptcy, David Skeel, University of Chicago Law Review, (2012). Fixing Puerto Rico’s Debt Mess, David Skeel, WSJ (2016). Can Pensions Be Restructured in (Detroit’s) Municipal Bankruptcy?, David Skeel (2013). When Cities Go Broke: A Conceptual Introduction toMunicipal Bankruptcy, Michael McConnell and Randal Picker, University of Chicago Law Review (1993). Governance Reform and the Judicial Role in MunicipalBankruptcy, Clayton Gillette and David Skeel, Yale Law Journal (2016). Junk Cities: Resolving Insolvency Crises in OverlappingMunicipalities, Aurelia Chaudhury, Adam Levitin, and David Schleicher. California Law Review (2019). Against Settlement, Owen Fiss, Yale Law Journal (1984). Brighton Beach Memoirs, Neil Simon (1983).

Summer is over, dear listeners. Sam spent his time reading hate mail from older Americans, while David has just moved around the corner from a senior assisted living facility. But more importantly, Digging a Hole is back for another season. In this week’s episode, we turn to the history of America’s obsession with land ownership. Here to take us from the rent wars of the 1840s up to the Great Financial Crisis, we have Joshua Specht, associate professor of history at the University of Notre Dame. He joins us to discuss his new book, Property Values: The Rise and Fall of the American Homeowner, which traces the history of American property ownership from the homestead to the modern suburb. Specht lays out his argument that American history can be understood through two linked ideals: nineteenth-century “landed democracy,” in which widespread land ownership underwrote visions of independence and citizenship, and the twentieth-century “ownership society,” which moved those aspirations to suburban homes. Sam questions whether land ownership and homeownership really belong in a single story and whether Americans might someday manage to untether democracy from owning a piece of land altogether. David, meanwhile, asks whether Specht’s narrative gives too much explanatory power to property ownership and not enough to economic growth and dynamism. He also wonders whether the decisive break in American housing really came with the mortgage revolution of the 1930s or with the rise of anti-growth politics in the 1970s. Referenced Readings Property Values: The Rise and Fall of the American Homeowner, by Joshua Specht Red Meat Republic: A Hoof-to-Table History of How Beef Changed America, by Joshua Specht “The Price of Meat,” by Samuel Moyn “How the Gentry Won: Property Law’s Embrace of Stasis,” by Roderick M. Hills Jr. and David Schleicher “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” by Frederick Jackson Turner Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, by Kenneth T. Jackson Americans Against the City: Anti-Urbanism in the Twentieth Century, by Steven Conn

Things are looking up, dear listeners. The semester is over, summer is nearly here, and David’s beloved Knicks are up 2-0 in the NBA Finals. In this week’s episode, we take a step back and do some introspection. Here to discuss whether you should trust Yale, and other elite universities, more than Jalen Brunson in the fourth quarter is friend and colleague Sarath Sanga, Professor of Law at Yale Law School and Co-Director of the Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law. Sanga joins us to discuss both his new article, A Theory of Trust in Institutions, co-authored by Yehonatan Givati, and the recent Report by the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education, of which Sanga was a member. Sanga kicks off the episode by explaining his view of why higher education is hemorrhaging public trust. Sanga argues that universities, and other institutions, pre-commit to doing specific things, and they lose trust whenever they stray from this initial commitment. Sam questions whether universities are now, and always have been, finishing schools for elites and, if so, whether it makes sense to talk about institutions like Yale having a mandate. And David brings up a variety of counterexamples that call into question whether an institution going against its mandate, such as when a university fields varsity sports teams, actually decreases trust in the real world. We hope you enjoy! Referenced Readings A Theory of Trust in Institutions, by Sarath Sanga and Yehonatan Givati

As gas reaches stratospheric prices and the cost of living continues to climb, war seems to be on everyone’s mind these days. What better time, then, to be joined by Lawrence Douglas, the James J. Grosfeld Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought at Amherst College, to discuss his brand new book, The Criminal State: War, Atrocity, and the Dream of International Justice? The episode begins with an overview of two paradigms in international criminal law. Douglas argues that international law has replaced the “aggression paradigm,” which emerged out of the Nuremberg trials, in favor of an “atrocity paradigm,” which focuses on sanctioning grievous acts of violence, especially towards civilians. However, Douglas suggests that both the atrocity paradigm and the now-defunct aggression paradigm suffer from serious deficiencies. Sam asks whether there really has been an aggression-atrocity shift or, instead, whether the aggression paradigm utterly failed, with a long delay before the separate construction of an atrocity paradigm — which itself proved short-lived. David queries whether Douglas’s story is too formalistic and already out of date. And, fortunately for everyone, we resist the urge to do the entire episode in Seinfeld voices. Referenced Readings Humane, by Samuel Moyn

Now that classes are over and the end of the semester is near, we’re back for several weeks of podcastmaxxing. So stay tuned for some great episodes in the coming weeks, dear listeners! Here to help us understand our current political moment and to diversify David’s reading list is Anton Jäger, a Departmental Lecturer in the History of Political Thought and Political Theory at University College, Oxford. Jäger joins the pod this week to discuss his new book, Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization without Political Consequences, where he offers a European’s perspective on the American political moment. This episode begins with an explanation of what, exactly, hyperpolitics is and how it differs from other, older forms of politics. Jäger suggests that hyperpolitics is characterized by a high degree of political involvement but a corresponding deinstitutionalization of politics. Sam queries whether our current moment might be more continuous with the past, with both characterized by a quiescent politics. And David asks about the degree to which our politics has been causally determined by economic forces. Along the way, we also discuss whether it’s helpful to label the Trump movement as fascist, whether hyperpolitics is the product of liberalism’s failure, and whether the smartphones are really to blame for everything. We hope you enjoy! Referenced Readings The Hollow Parties, by Daniel Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld