Term Talk

FJC
  • 5.0 (6)
  • BUSINESS
  • UPDATED BIMONTHLY

The nations top legal scholars discuss what Federal Judges need to know about the U.S. Supreme Courts most impactful decisions.

  1. 12/04/2025

    Term Talk: F.D.A. v. R.J. Reynolds; Diamond Alternative v. E.P.A.; Royal Canin v. Wullschleger

    Federal Jurisdiction. Standing. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's broadening of the zone of interest for standing in F.D.A. v R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and how predictable downstream economic harm can confer standing on non-regulated parties in Diamond Alternative Energy v. E.P.A. In their analysis of Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, they discuss how the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by deciding that the removal of federal claims terminates federal supplemental jurisdiction. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

    13 min

  2. 12/04/2025 · VIDEO

    Term Talk: F.D.A. v. R.J. Reynolds; Diamond Alternative v. E.P.A.; Royal Canin v. Wullschleger

    Federal Jurisdiction. Standing. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's broadening of the zone of interest for standing in F.D.A. v R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and how predictable downstream economic harm can confer standing on non-regulated parties in Diamond Alternative Energy v. E.P.A. In their analysis of Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, they discuss how the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by deciding that the removal of federal claims terminates federal supplemental jurisdiction. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

    14 min

  3. 12/04/2025 · VIDEO

    Term Talk: Lackey v. Stinnie; BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman; Waetzig v. Halliburton

    Civil Procedure. Relief from judgment. Civil rights. Prevailing party. Legal experts discuss Lackey v. Stinnie and the Supreme Court's interpretation of a prevailing party in civil rights litigation entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, and in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman and Waetzig v. Halliburton, the requirements for relief from judgment under F.R.C.P. 60(b). Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

    13 min

  4. 12/04/2025

    Term Talk: Lackey v. Stinnie; BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman; Waetzig v. Halliburton

    Civil Procedure. Relief from judgment. Civil rights. Prevailing party. Legal experts discuss Lackey v. Stinnie and the Supreme Court's interpretation of a prevailing party in civil rights litigation entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, and in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman and Waetzig v. Halliburton, the requirements for relief from judgment under F.R.C.P. 60(b). Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

    12 min

  5. 10/09/2025

    Term Talk: F.C.C. v. Consumers Research; Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt.; Trump v. Wilcox

    Administrative Law. Non-delegation Doctrine. Appointments Clause. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of intelligible principles that support congressional delegation of power to agencies in F.C.C. v. Consumers' Research and congressional delegations of appointment powers to heads of agencies under the Appointments Clause in Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt. They discuss the potential impact of the Court's decision in Trump v. Wilcox on congressional restrictions of executive removal powers. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

    15 min

  6. 10/09/2025 · VIDEO

    Term Talk: F.C.C. v. Consumers Research; Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt.; Trump v. Wilcox

    Administrative Law. Non-delegation Doctrine. Appointments Clause. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of intelligible principles that support congressional delegation of power to agencies in F.C.C. v. Consumers' Research and congressional delegations of appointment powers to heads of agencies under the Appointments Clause in Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt. They discuss the potential impact of the Court's decision in Trump v. Wilcox on congressional restrictions of executive removal powers. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

    16 min

  7. 10/09/2025

    Term Talk: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic; Perttu v. Richards

    Civil Rights. § 1983. Prison Litigation Reform Act. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of language that confers individual rights in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the requirement of a jury finding when there is a factual dispute over exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Perttu v. Richards. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

    10 min

  8. 10/09/2025 · VIDEO

    Term Talk: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic; Perttu v. Richards

    Civil Rights. § 1983. Prison Litigation Reform Act. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of language that confers individual rights in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the requirement of a jury finding when there is a factual dispute over exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Perttu v. Richards. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

    11 min
See All (120)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
6 Ratings

About

The nations top legal scholars discuss what Federal Judges need to know about the U.S. Supreme Courts most impactful decisions.

Information

  • Creator
    FJC
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2025
  • Episodes
    120
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Show Website
    Term Talk

You Might Also Like