This series of podcasts features experts who analyze the latest developments in the legal and policy world. The podcasts are in the form of monologues, podcast debates or panel discussions and vary in length. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues.
Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: Van Buren v. United States
On June 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. United States. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that an individual exceeds authorized access when he accesses a computer with authorization but obtains information in a place on the computer off-limits to him. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District Joseph DeMarco joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.
-- Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeMarco Law PLLC
COVID Lockdowns At The Border
This teleforum will examine the president's use of travel bans during the SARS-2 pandemic Two of the nation's top experts in immigration law--Professor Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and Chris Hajec of the Immigration Reform Law Institute--will present their views of the law and policy in this area while also taking questions from the audience.
-- Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
-- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: United States v. Cooley
In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Breyer that could have far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Cooley that a tribal police officer does have authority to temporarily detain a non-Indian where the officer has probable cause of a violation of state or federal law. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.
Joining us to discuss are Indian Law experts AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle.
-- Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
-- Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: San Antonio, TX v. Hotels.com
On May 27, the Supreme Court issued its 9-0 decision in San Antonio, TX v. Hotels.com holding that district courts lack the discretion to deny or reduce Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 appellate costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.
Joining us to discuss is Associate Professor of Law and Interim Dean Charles Campbell of Faulkner University Jones School of Law.
-- Charles Campbell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law
Talks with Authors: Administrative Law Theory and Fundamentals: An Integrated Approach
Few fields are more in need of fresh thinking than administrative law. The author of Administrative Law Theory and Fundamentals: An Integrated Approach, a new casebook recently published by Foundation Press, seeks to provide such thinking. The new casebook proposes a theory of administrative power that better explains constitutional text and structure, as well as historical and modern practice, than competing accounts. It argues that there are “exclusive” powers that only Congress, the President, and the courts can respectively exercise, but also “nonexclusive” powers that can be exercised by more than one branch. This theory of “nonexclusive powers” allows students and scholars of administrative law to make more sense of—or better critiques of—administrative concepts such as delegation, quasi-powers, judicial deference, agency adjudications, the chameleon-like quality of government power, and of the separation of powers more broadly. Please join Professor Ilan Wurman, the casebook’s author, and Professor Richard Epstein, for a discussion of this new casebook and its theory of administrative power.
-- Ilan Wurman, Author, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
-- Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
The Equal Rights Amendment: Then and Now
First proposed in 1923 – yes, nearly one hundred years ago - the Equal Rights Amendment was finally passed by the U.S. Congress nearly 50 years later, in 1972, with a seven-year deadline for its ratification. With the deadline approaching, but the requisite 38 states not having voted to ratify, Congress approved, and President Carter signed, a three-year extension, to 1982.
Several states and the U.S. Congress are now revisiting the ERA, raising a variety of issues:
· Whether it is constitutionally possible at this point to extend or eliminate the deadline for ratification of the 1972 ERA; the effectiveness (or not) of five states’ revocations of their votes to ratify; the effectiveness (or not) of the three states’ ratifications that came more than 35 years after the extended deadline;
· The pros and cons and wisdom (or not) and necessity (or not) and ramifications of amending the United States Constitution with the ERA.
These and related matters will be discussed by Rep. Steven Andersson, founder of GOP4ERA.org, and Jennifer Braceras, Director of the Independent Women’s Law Center. Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor will moderate the discussion.
Rep. Steven Andersson, Founder, GOP4ERA.org
Jennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center
Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC
To register, click on the link above.
To be fair
The person below should have read the next 9 words in the description: "all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers."
GREAT...But Covid quality
Amazing content. We need to address the quality of the audio. Thank you for producing these. Amazing content!
Quality of Audio
What kind of potato was this recorded on?