In November 2025, Neal Kumar Katyal was asked to do what no US Supreme Court litigator had ever done: convince the justices to strike down a sitting president’s signature initiative. After enlisting the help of four unlikely coaches — and one secret weapon he hasn’t told anyone about until now — he walked into the courtroom ready for anything. What he discovered about winning and connecting might just change how you think about performing under pressure. (Recorded at TED2026 on April 17, 2026)
Join us in person at a TED conference:
Become a TED Member to support our mission:
Subscribe to a TED newsletter:
Follow TED!
Instagram:
LinkedIn:
TikTok:
Facebook:
X:
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less) — plus originals, podcasts and exclusive content. Look for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design as well as science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit for our entire library, transcripts, translations and personalized recommendations.
Watch more:
TED videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with the TED Talks Usage Policy: . For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), submit a request at
#TED #TEDTalks #Society
@iwuvmybigfamily
May 14, 2026 at 11:11 am
Love you Neil 😊
@ExistentialWolf
May 14, 2026 at 11:39 am
Ahhhhhh Murika thinking we care what you buy. I’m glad you like your job though. 👍👍
@godofedrofalso4586
May 14, 2026 at 11:59 am
I don’t think judges make decisions based on what law says or in jurisprudence. Especially high court judges, their legal justification for a decision is far more a posteriori than a priori. What really matters is not the truth of your legal arguments, but the politics of the judges
@Votingpretty
May 14, 2026 at 12:20 pm
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1970 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968) to combat organized crime by targeting ongoing criminal enterprises. It allows leaders of syndicates to be tried for crimes they ordered others to commit, featuring penalties of up to 20 years in prison per count, massive fines, and forfeiture of illegal proceeds.Key Aspects of RICO LawPurpose: Originally designed to dismantle the Mafia, RICO is now used against various criminal enterprises, including gangs, corrupt organizations, and white-collar crime.Requirements for Conviction: Prosecutors must prove a “pattern of racketeering activity,” defined as at least two related acts (predicate offenses) within a 10-year period.Predicate Acts: The law defines 35+ offenses—including murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, mail/wire fraud, and money laundering—as racketeering.Enterprise: A RICO case requires an “enterprise,” which can be a legal entity (like a corporation) or an illegal association-in-fact (like a gang).Civil RICO: The act allows private victims of racketeering to sue for damages, often leading to treble damages (triple the actual damages).Legal SignificanceBeyond the Mafia: While originating from the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, it has been used against corrupt police departments, Wall Street firms, and political organizations.Penalties: In addition to 20-year prison terms, RICO allows for the forfeiture of business interests and property gained through illegal activity.State RICO Laws: Many states, such as Georgia, have adopted their own, sometimes broader, versions of the RICO statute.
@waynechen8537
May 14, 2026 at 2:44 pm
That was powerful, impactful, and it touched something in my heart. Thank you.
@mattp422
May 14, 2026 at 3:20 pm
Wish you had argued the Louisiana Voting Rights Act decision
@AdityaMehendale
May 14, 2026 at 5:43 pm
Nice. I didn’t know that the tariffs have been annulled and lifted.
@wachinpntdry.
May 14, 2026 at 8:33 pm
interesting talk….. but making generalized characterizations (13:15 – 13:35) of the justices on _this_ scotus as having _”character_” ?… and _”integrity”_ ?…. well, that sorta steals some of your credibility