Claim OwnershipTerm Talk
Subscribed: 1Played: 18
Subscribe
Description
The nation's top legal scholars discuss what Federal Judges need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court's most impactful decisions.
54 Episodes
Reverse
First Amendment. Government Speech. Experts analyze whether government speech infringed on others' speech rights, in Murthy v. Missouri, and the government’s unconstitutional use of retaliation to suppress disfavored speech in National Rifle Association v. Vullo.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Michael McConnell, former Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of Research at the Federal Judicial Center.
First Amendment. Social Media. Experts analyze the Court’s varied opinions on whether social media platform content moderation is speech protected by the First Amendment in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and when posts to personal social media accounts by government officials becomes government speech in Lindke v. Freed.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Michael McConnell, former Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of Research at the Federal Judicial Center.
Administrative Law. Chevron deference. In this extended edition of Term Talk, experts review the Supreme Court's administrative law decisions over the past few terms and analyze their impact on the regulatory state, to include the rejection of Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo; the prohibition against imposing administrative penalties for fraud without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy; and extending the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedure Act in Corner Post v. FRB.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Michael McConnell, former Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of Research at the Federal Judicial Center.
Preemption. NLRA. Experts discuss the aggravated imminent and foreseeable harm needed to remove unions from protection under the National Labor Relations Act and to allow actions in state courts to proceed.
Dormant Commerce Clause. Experts discuss the reaffirmation of the Pike balancing test and express different interpretations of the Supreme Court’s treatment of extra-territoriality principles.
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. (link) Whether FSIA applies to criminal cases, and whether an immunity might be found in common law.
Pugin v. Garland. Immigration and Nationality Act. (link) The meaning of “related to obstruction of justice” in the context of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and whether the move away from the categorical approach in this context will be applied more generally
Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s opinion in Smith v. United States which held that double jeopardy does not attach to trials conducted in the wrong venue.
In Samia v. United States, they analyze whether the use of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that implicates the other defendant violates the codefendant’s right to confront witnesses.
Finally, In Re Grand Jury, they discuss what the Court’s dismissal of the case after argument might mean to efforts to expand the scope of the attorney-client privilege.
Groff v. DeJoy. Civil Rights. Title VII. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Michael McConnell discuss the term’s case likely to have the greatest impact on the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s substantial cost standard increases the burden on employers to provide religious accommodations to employees and will prompt litigation necessary to define the new standard.
Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Civil Rights. §1983. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Michael McConnell analyze §1983 enforcement of Spending Clause legislation, and the limitations on bringing private causes of action.
Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Michael McConnell was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and is the Richard and Francis Mallery Professor of Law, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, at Stanford University Law School.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. First Amendment. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Tara Grove discuss the emerging artistic expression exception to public accommodations and anti-discrimination laws.
Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Tara Grove is a Professor and the Vinson and Elkins Chair at the University of Texas at Austin, School of Law.
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Michael McConnell, former Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, analyze the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation and application of the Thornburg v. Gingles test to districting questions in Alabama.
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Michael McConnell, former Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, discuss the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Independent State Legislature Theory.
Experts discuss the Court’s elevated clear statement rule in Biden v. Nebraska, and a potentially diminishing special solicitude toward state standing in United States v. Texas.
Experts discuss the Court’s elevated clear statement rule in Biden v. Nebraska, and a potentially diminishing special solicitude toward state standing in United States v. Texas.
Equal Protection. Title VI. Affirmative Action. Experts discuss the Courts move from allowing the consideration of race to remedy past harms and promote diversity, to the emerging constitutional requirement to create a color-blind society.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law School; Tara Grove, Professor, UT Austin, School of Law; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Criminal Law. Confrontation Clause. Experts discuss the tension between evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Criminal Law. Voir Dire. Death Penalty Act. Experts discuss the broad authority lower courts have to decide evidentiary questions in the context of high profile and death penalty cases.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the Court’s clarification of content-based and content-neutral speech regulation, as well as the important distinction between government as speaker and government as creator of forums for private speech in First Amendment jurisprudence.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the authority of elected bodies to censure their members for speech and actions. They also discuss how the Court’s view of core political speech runs counter to congressional attempts to prevent financial misconduct during campaigns and undue influence after candidates are elected.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the Court’s clarification of content-based and content-neutral speech regulation, as well as the important distinction between government as speaker and government as creator of forums for private speech in First Amendment jurisprudence.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the authority of elected bodies to censure their members for speech and actions. They also discuss how the Court’s view of core political speech runs counter to congressional attempts to prevent financial misconduct during campaigns and undue influence after candidates are elected.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States