Show Notes
A 101-page lawsuit has put Cornell University, a fraternity and seven former students at the center of a national debate. How did a case from 2024 end up back in the spotlight? In this episode, we walk through what the public court papers and credible reports say: - What the civil lawsuit filed in September 2026 alleges, and who it names - What Cornell's own disciplinary process did, and what sanctions were reported - Why no criminal charges were filed at first, and why prosecutors are looking at the case again - The difference between a civil lawsuit, a university hearing and a criminal case - What a grand jury does, and what could happen next Important: these are allegations. The people named have not been convicted of any crime, and there are conflicting accounts of what happened. We stick to documented facts, include the other side's position where it is public, and leave conclusions to the courts. If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual violence, support is available. In the US, you can contact RAINN at 1-800-656-4673. Follow the show for new episodes every week, leave a rating, and join the Supporters Club for bonus episodes. Facts are based on public reporting as of the publication date and may change. For information only. Not legal advice. This show is independent and is not affiliated with any person or organization mentioned.
Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.
This episode includes AI-generated content.
More from Gavel & Gazette
The Trump administration is reportedly trying to strip Rep. Ilhan Omar of her U.S. citizenship and deport her — a move her spokesperson calls "no basis in law." Legal experts say denaturalization is an arduous process with a "really, really high" standard, and the case centers on whether her father misrecorded her age when she was a minor. In Washington, D.C., in 2026, a sitting congresswoman faces an investigation that critics call political intimidation. If you follow stories of power, law, and the people caught in the crosshairs, follow the podcast for more. Based on public records and news reports.
A late night host dares a Texas travel chain to sue him over a cartoon squirrel. Two days later, the company sues a small Ohio convenience store over its cartoon beaver. In July 2026, John Oliver took on Buc-ee's and its trademark lawsuits against businesses with cartoon animal logos, from beavers to alligators, moose, and even a dog in a cape. This episode explains what the law actually says: how courts decide whether a logo is confusing, whether a company has to sue or lose its trademark, and whether parody is really a free pass after the Supreme Court's Jack Daniel's decision. Both sides have a point, and the answer is less simple than the headlines suggest. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.
The Supreme Court is weighing a decision that could change how the law works for millions of Americans. This episode breaks it down in plain English: what the case is about, what the justices are being asked to decide, the arguments on each side, and what could change depending on the outcome.
A woman said a Bachelor star had gotten her pregnant with twins. She filed a paternity suit and asked for child support. There was just one problem: there were no twins.
A lawyer files a brief. The cases look real, the quotes sound right, and the citations are perfectly formatted. Then the judge checks, and none of it exists.