The 14 Best Law Podcasts (2026)

The Lawfare Podcast sits at the intersection of national security, law, and politics, and it has become essential listening for anyone trying to understand the legal dimensions of American governance. The show publishes daily and has amassed roughly 2,000 episodes, featuring conversations with experts, policymakers, and legal scholars who actually know what they are talking about.

Multiple hosts rotate through -- Alina Polyakova, Evelyn Douek, Kate Klonick, Natalie Orpett, Quinta Jurecic -- each bringing specific expertise in areas like cybersecurity, foreign policy, constitutional law, and tech regulation. Episodes range from 35 minutes to over 90 minutes depending on the topic. The show includes several recurring series, like Rational Security for weekly news roundups and Scaling Laws for tech-focused analysis.

What makes Lawfare indispensable is its rigor. When a constitutional crisis hits or a major legal battle erupts, this is where the actual experts come to explain what is happening and what it means. The hosts ask precise, informed questions, and the guests respond with the kind of nuance you do not get from cable news panels. A 4.7 rating from more than 6,200 reviews reflects the trust this show has earned. It can be dense -- this is not background listening -- but if you want to genuinely understand the legal machinery of American politics, no other podcast comes close.

Three constitutional law professors walk into a podcast studio, and the result is genuinely one of the best Supreme Court shows out there. Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray host Strict Scrutiny, a weekly panel discussion that manages to be both analytically rigorous and laugh-out-loud funny. With nearly 400 episodes, a 4.6-star rating, and over 5,500 reviews, this show has clearly found its audience.

Each Monday, the three hosts break down the latest from the Supreme Court, including oral arguments, opinions, and the behind-the-scenes dynamics that shape how the justices decide cases. Episodes run about an hour to an hour and fifty minutes, which sounds long, but the chemistry between the hosts makes the time fly. They genuinely enjoy arguing with each other, and their disagreements are some of the most illuminating parts of the show.

What makes Strict Scrutiny stand out is the irreverence. These are professors who know their stuff cold but refuse to be boring about it. They will give you the full doctrinal analysis of a voting rights case and then pivot to dissecting the interpersonal drama between justices. The show treats the Supreme Court as what it actually is: a deeply human institution where personality and politics matter as much as precedent. If you have ever wanted to understand why a particular court decision will affect your daily life, this is the podcast that will actually explain it to you without talking down.

Preet Bharara spent years as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, prosecuting everyone from corrupt politicians to Wall Street fraudsters. Now he brings that firsthand experience to Stay Tuned with Preet, one of the most popular legal podcasts around with nearly 32,000 ratings and a 4.8-star average. The show drops twice weekly, with episodes running about an hour each.

The format is primarily interview-driven. Bharara sits down with legal experts, journalists, political figures, and authors to unpack whatever is dominating the headlines. His interviewing style is direct but patient. He is genuinely curious, and he has a prosecutor's instinct for the follow-up question that cuts through spin. Bonus episodes with co-host Joyce Vance add another perspective, especially on matters related to federal law enforcement and constitutional authority.

What really works here is Bharara's ability to translate his institutional knowledge into plain language. When he explains how a federal investigation actually unfolds or why a particular DOJ decision matters, you are getting insight from someone who lived it. He does not shy away from taking positions, but he is transparent about when he is offering opinion versus analysis. The show covers executive power, immigration law, criminal justice reform, and the occasional deep-cut procedural question that only a former prosecutor would think to raise. It is the kind of podcast that makes you feel genuinely smarter about the legal system after each episode.

Opening Arguments takes a simple but effective approach: pair a comedian with legal analysts and let them hash out the law together. Thomas Smith hosts, bringing genuine curiosity and a layperson's perspective to complicated legal topics, while rotating legal experts provide the substantive analysis. The result is a show that has racked up over 1,200 episodes and a loyal following of listeners who rate it 4.3 stars across more than 3,500 reviews.

The schedule is ambitious. New episodes drop roughly three times a week, with Monday shows typically tackling a deep legal topic, Wednesday episodes featuring community engagement, and Friday installments responding to breaking legal news. Episodes generally run 45 to 60 minutes, though big topics can push past the hour mark. The format keeps things fresh because you never know if you are going to get a methodical breakdown of election law or a rapid-fire reaction to a surprise court ruling.

The show's real strength is making dense legal concepts genuinely understandable. Smith asks the questions that a smart non-lawyer would ask, and the legal analysts take the time to explain not just what happened but why it matters. They cover constitutional law, administrative procedure, criminal cases, and immigration policy with equal enthusiasm. It can get a little politically pointed at times, but the legal reasoning is always front and center. If you want a podcast that treats you like an intelligent adult who just happens to not have gone to law school, Opening Arguments delivers consistently.

Dahlia Lithwick has been covering the Supreme Court for Slate for over two decades, and Amicus is where she does her best work in audio form. Co-hosted with Mark Joseph Stern, the show has built up over 570 episodes and earned a 4.6-star rating from more than 3,300 listeners. New episodes arrive weekly, running anywhere from 45 minutes to just over an hour.

The format centers on interviews with legal scholars, advocates, and practitioners who are deeply embedded in the cases being discussed. Lithwick has a gift for asking questions that reveal not just the legal mechanics of a case but the human stakes behind it. When the show covers a voting rights dispute or an immigration enforcement challenge, you come away understanding both the doctrinal arguments and why actual people's lives hang in the balance.

Stern brings a complementary energy as co-host. Where Lithwick tends toward the big-picture narrative, Stern is more granular and sometimes more blunt in his assessments. The two of them together create a dynamic that keeps episodes from settling into a single tone. Slate Plus subscribers get bonus content, but the free episodes are more than sufficient. Amicus is particularly strong during Supreme Court term, when Lithwick and Stern are at their most engaged and opinionated. This is a show for people who want to understand the courts as institutions shaped by real human beings with biases, ambitions, and blind spots, not just as abstract arbiters of law.

Bloomberg Law is the no-nonsense option in the legal podcast space. Hosted by June Grasso, the show has been running for years with over 2,000 episodes in the archive. It drops daily, with episodes clocking in at a brisk 25 to 40 minutes. The 3.6-star rating from about 360 reviewers might seem modest, but that partly reflects the show's straightforward, news-first approach rather than any lack of quality.

The format is classic interview radio. Grasso brings on prominent attorneys, legal scholars, and Bloomberg's own legal journalists to discuss whatever case or ruling is making headlines that day. There is no banter, no extended personal anecdotes, no attempts to be entertaining for entertainment's sake. You tune in, you get expert analysis of a legal development, and you move on with your day better informed. For busy professionals who need to stay current on legal news without committing to a 90-minute episode, this efficiency is the whole point.

The Bloomberg brand brings serious sourcing advantages. The guests tend to be high-caliber, and the show has access to the kind of attorneys and analysts who might not show up on smaller podcasts. Coverage spans corporate litigation, regulatory changes, criminal trials, constitutional questions, and the business side of the legal industry. It is particularly good for understanding how court decisions affect markets and corporate strategy. Think of Bloomberg Law as the legal equivalent of a well-edited morning briefing: reliable, professional, and consistently useful.

Four powerhouse legal minds sit around a virtual table each week and break down the biggest stories at the intersection of law, politics, and culture. Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr are the hosts of #SistersInLaw, and their combined resumes read like a greatest hits of American legal careers: former U.S. Attorney, former Watergate prosecutor, legal commentator, and journalist. The show has earned a remarkable 4.9-star rating from over 10,000 listeners across its 274 episodes.

Episodes run about 50 minutes to an hour and twenty minutes, and the panel format gives each host room to bring her own expertise to the conversation. Vance tends to focus on federal prosecution and DOJ matters, Wine-Banks draws fascinating parallels to Watergate-era law, McQuade brings prosecutorial rigor, and Atkins Stohr contextualizes everything within the broader political narrative. The dynamic between them feels genuinely warm, like eavesdropping on a conversation between friends who happen to be brilliant.

The show also features a companion Sidebar segment with shorter episodes answering listener questions, which is a nice touch. Topics range from Supreme Court ethics to immigration enforcement to election integrity. The perspective leans progressive, and the hosts are upfront about that rather than pretending otherwise. If you want sharp, experienced legal analysis delivered with personality and conviction, #SistersInLaw is hard to beat.

David French and Sarah Isgur make for one of the more compelling pairings in legal podcasting. Both are lawyers with extensive careers in constitutional law and political commentary, and their twice-weekly show Advisory Opinions has built a dedicated audience of over 3,800 raters who give it a 4.8-star average across 614 episodes. Each installment runs about 55 minutes to an hour and fifteen minutes.

The format is straightforward two-person discussion. French and Isgur pick apart court decisions, legal controversies, and the places where law and politics collide. What makes the show work is that they genuinely disagree on enough to keep things interesting while sharing enough intellectual framework to have productive conversations rather than shouting matches. French comes from a more conservative legal background with deep First Amendment expertise, while Isgur brings experience from the DOJ and political campaigns.

The show is particularly strong on Supreme Court analysis and circuit court decisions that other podcasts overlook. They cover the cases that will matter in six months, not just the ones making headlines today. There is a real emphasis on helping listeners understand legal reasoning and judicial philosophy rather than just outcomes. They will walk you through an opinion paragraph by paragraph if it warrants it. Published by The Dispatch, the show maintains an independent, center-right editorial perspective. For anyone who wants their legal analysis to come from people who take the law seriously as its own discipline rather than just a proxy for political outcomes, Advisory Opinions is a standout.

Lawyer 2 Lawyer is one of the true veterans of legal podcasting. Hosted by attorney J. Craig Williams and running since 2005, the show has accumulated over 685 episodes and stands as one of the longest-running podcasts on the internet, period. New episodes drop roughly twice a month, running 34 to 51 minutes each. The 4.2-star rating from 136 reviewers reflects a loyal but specialized audience.

The format is classic legal interview. Williams invites practicing attorneys, judges, legal scholars, and industry professionals to discuss a specific legal topic or recent court development. The conversations tend to be more measured and professional than what you will find on politically charged legal shows. This is closer to a thoughtful CLE seminar than a cable news panel, which is exactly what some listeners want.

Williams has a talent for asking the kind of contemplative questions that push his guests past their talking points. The show covers a broad range of legal topics: constitutional law, criminal justice, regulatory disputes, and the evolving business of practicing law. It does not chase headlines the way daily shows do. Instead, it takes a step back and examines legal developments with the kind of patience that comes from two decades of doing this. For legal professionals who want substantive peer-level discussion, or for anyone interested in hearing how lawyers actually think about the issues of the day, Lawyer 2 Lawyer has earned its longevity.

If you follow high-profile criminal cases and want quick, informed breakdowns rather than hour-long deep dives, Law&Crime Sidebar is built for you. Hosted by Jesse Weber with co-host Angenette Levy, the show delivers concise legal analysis in episodes that typically run 20 to 40 minutes. With over 1,200 episodes and a 4.1-star rating, it has become a go-to source for courtroom coverage.

The Law&Crime network, founded by Dan Abrams, has built a reputation for serious trial coverage, and Sidebar benefits from that infrastructure. Episodes draw on court documents, body camera footage, and expert testimony to break down cases involving everything from fraud and public corruption to violent crime and celebrity legal trouble. Weber brings an energetic presenting style that keeps the pace moving, and Levy adds prosecutorial context that helps listeners understand the legal strategy at play.

What makes Sidebar distinct from pure true crime podcasts is its emphasis on the legal process itself. You do not just hear about what happened. You learn about evidentiary standards, prosecutorial decision-making, defense strategies, and how judges manage complex proceedings. The show regularly features interviews with former prosecutors, defense attorneys, and legal analysts who can speak to the specifics of a case with real authority. It skews toward the sensational side of legal news, which is not for everyone, but the analysis underneath is solid. For people who want to understand how the justice system actually works in practice, Sidebar provides a front-row seat.

Above the Law started as one of the most popular legal blogs on the internet, and Thinking Like a Lawyer is its podcast extension. Hosted by Joe Patrice and Kathryn Rubino, with Chris Williams and occasional appearances from Elie Mystal, the show runs weekly with episodes clocking in at a tight 27 to 41 minutes. It has built up 452 episodes and a 3.9-star rating from about 485 reviewers.

The premise is clever: take everyday topics and examine them through a legal lens. The hosts apply legal frameworks to things regular people actually care about, which makes the show accessible even if you have zero interest in reading case law. But they also spend plenty of time on inside-baseball legal industry topics, from Big Law hiring trends and associate salary wars to legal ethics controversies and bar exam debates.

The panel chemistry is the real draw. Patrice and Rubino trade banter naturally and are not afraid to disagree on air. The humor is dry and knowing, the kind that comes from people who genuinely love the legal profession but have no illusions about its absurdities. Mystal's guest appearances tend to be the most provocative episodes, as he brings strong opinions and a willingness to challenge conventional legal thinking. The show straddles the line between legal industry insider content and general interest legal commentary in a way that few other shows manage. If you want to understand not just how the law works but what it is like to actually work in the law, this podcast nails it.

Legal AF by MeidasTouch is the most prolific show on this list, with over 1,600 episodes and a production schedule that somehow includes full-length episodes on Wednesdays and Sundays plus breaking news segments throughout the week. The 4.9-star rating from nearly 5,700 reviewers speaks to a fiercely dedicated audience. Hosts Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok, and Karen Friedman Agnifilo bring serious legal credentials to the table: a civil rights attorney, a trial strategist, and a former Manhattan chief assistant district attorney.

Full episodes run long, often an hour and a half or more, giving the hosts room to really dig into the legal specifics of whatever case or controversy they are covering. The shorter breaking news segments, typically 13 to 19 minutes, are useful for quick updates on fast-moving situations. The panel format works well because each host brings a different area of expertise, so the analysis shifts depending on who takes the lead on a given topic.

The show does not pretend to be politically neutral. It comes from a progressive perspective and is upfront about that, which means the legal analysis is filtered through a clear point of view. For listeners who share that perspective, it provides detailed, informed commentary on everything from DOJ investigations to congressional oversight battles to immigration proceedings. The hosts are at their best when they are breaking down trial strategy and courtroom procedure, drawing on their actual practice experience. If you want aggressive, opinionated legal commentary backed by real expertise, Legal AF delivers in volume.

Stanford Legal is what happens when one of the world's top law schools decides to share its faculty with the public. Hosted by Pam Karlan, a constitutional law heavyweight, and Diego Zambrano, a civil procedure scholar, the show features conversations with Stanford Law professors and visiting experts about legal questions that affect everyday life. With 184 episodes dropping biweekly and a 4.3-star rating, it occupies a unique niche in legal podcasting.

The academic pedigree shows in the best possible way. These are people who have spent their careers thinking deeply about voting rights, criminal justice, privacy, executive power, and procedural fairness. The conversations go places that most legal podcasts simply cannot reach because most hosts do not have this kind of intellectual horsepower on speed dial. A single episode might feature a leading expert on democratic theory explaining why a particular election law case could reshape representation for a generation.

Episodes run about 30 to 45 minutes, which is refreshingly compact. Karlan and Zambrano are skilled interviewers who know how to draw out the most interesting ideas without letting conversations meander. The tone is serious but not stuffy. There is a genuine excitement about ideas that comes through, the kind of enthusiasm you get from people who chose to spend their lives studying these questions. Stanford Legal will not give you hot takes or breaking news reactions. What it will give you is a deeper understanding of the legal principles that underpin the headlines everyone else is chasing.

Maximum Lawyer takes a completely different angle from every other show on this list. Instead of analyzing court cases or Supreme Court opinions, hosts Tyson Mutrux and Jim Hacking focus on the business of running a law firm. With 917 episodes, a 4.9-star rating, and weekly drops running 20 to 50 minutes each, the show has become a trusted resource for attorneys who want to build sustainable practices without burning out.

The format is interview-heavy. Mutrux and Hacking bring on law firm owners, business consultants, marketing specialists, and leadership coaches to talk about the unglamorous but essential work of running a legal practice. Topics include client intake systems, hiring and retaining staff, managing cash flow, marketing strategies that actually work, and building firm culture. These are the things they definitely did not teach in law school but that determine whether a firm survives its first five years.

What keeps the show grounded is that both hosts are practicing attorneys who built their own firms from scratch. They are not just theorizing about business growth; they have lived through the mistakes and learned from them. The conversations have a practical, roll-up-your-sleeves quality that you rarely find in business podcasts, which tend to stay at a high altitude. Maximum Lawyer gets specific. You will hear actual numbers, real strategies, and honest accounts of what did not work. For solo practitioners and small firm owners trying to figure out the business side of law, this podcast fills a gap that almost nothing else addresses.