UnCommon Law Bloomberg Industry Group

This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring one of the most expansive Federal Trade Commission proposals of the last half century: a near-total nationwide ban on noncompete clauses. We’ll examine arguments for the ban, and talk to workers who’ve had their livelihoods crushed by oppressive covenants not to compete. We’ll look at arguments in favor of keeping noncompetes, and talk with business owners who say they’re crucial for keeping trade secrets confidential and protecting business relationships. Finally, we’ll explore a more fundamental question: Does the FTC even have the legal authority to do this?
Our first episode explores how this unprecedented proposal came to be. To understand just how out-of-the-ordinary this proposal is, we'll journey into the history of the agency, whose past rulemakings got them labeled the "national nanny" by the Washington Post, and led to threats of defunding.
Guests:

Emily Olson, hair stylist

Leah Nylen, Bloomberg News reporter

Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director of the Open Markets Institute

Evan Starr, professor at the University of Maryland


Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring one of the most expansive Federal Trade Commission proposals in modern history: a nationwide ban on noncompete clauses. Coming May 31st.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s been almost 20 years since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, intentionally or not, set an affirmative action countdown in motion. On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court heard arguments that Harvard and the University of North Carolina go too far in their use of race in admissions. Will the diversity rationale — the heart of affirmative action defenses since 1978 — convince this staunchly conservative court?
Also, while diversity has been the reason affirmative action has survived legal tests — was it ever the best reason, under the Constitution, for affirmative action? Or have advocates been hamstrung by an argument that doesn't go far enough?
Are race-conscious admissions policies about to fall? The conclusion to our four-part series on affirmative action at the Supreme Court.
Guests:

Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions

William Lee, partner at WilmerHale

Kimberly Robinson, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law

Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University

Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law

Michelle Adams, professor at the University of Michigan Law School


Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For decades, over multiple decisions, the Supreme Court has been clear: The U.S. Constitution allows colleges to take race into account when they craft their incoming classes. And yet race-conscious admissions policies continue to face attacks.
Today, on part three of our four-part series on affirmative action, we’ll meet the man who has perhaps done more than any other in recent memory fighting to end the use of race in America’s public policies. Will Edward Blum be successful in convincing today’s solidly conservative high court to end affirmative action in education?
Guests:

Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions

Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law

Garrett Epps, professor at the University of Oregon School of Law


Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1978, the Supreme Court allowed colleges to take race into account when crafting their incoming classes. Throughout the '80s and '90s, that’s what many schools did: To get a diverse incoming class, universities used race as one factor among many.
But some schools get a lot of applicants — tens of thousands of students applying for just a few thousand spots. How do you complete an individualized review of so many people? How do you make sure you consider race consistently across those tens of thousands? Is there a way to streamline the process while still complying with what Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. said the Equal Protection Clause requires?
This is the second episode of UnCommon Law's three-part series about the Supreme Court's biggest affirmative action in education cases. In the first episode we looked at the 1978 case of Allan Bakke, an applicant to medical school who was denied admission. In this episode, we explore the 2003 cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.
Guests include:

Diego Bernal — Texas state representative and former president of the Latino Law Students Association at the University of Michigan Law School

Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School

Greg Stohr — Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News

Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and former president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund

Terence Pell — President of the Center for Individual Rights

Marvin Krislov — President of Pace University, and former vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan

Lee Bollinger — President of Columbia University, and former president of the University of Michigan

Agnes Aleobua — Principal of Citizens Academy Glenville in Cleveland, and former student intervenor at the University of Michigan

Cristina Rodríguez — Professor at Yale Law School and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor


Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For more than 50 years, colleges and universities around the country have taken race into account as they craft their incoming classes. But now a pair of lawsuits could change the face of higher education in this country. It’s the biggest challenge to affirmative action in a generation. And, given the makeup of this Supreme Court, it is very likely affirmative action in college admissions could be found unconstitutional.
Over three episodes, we will explore the legal issues around affirmative action in higher education. Does the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit all discrimination based on race? Or is benign discrimination permissible — taking race into account in order to help groups that have been marginalized? Does the constitution leave room to remedy society’s ills?
In this episode, we explore the 1978 case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke — the first challenge to affirmative action decided by the Supreme Court. Guests include:

* Robert “Bo” Links — Attorney for Allan Bakke

* Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School

* Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and former president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund

* Garrett Epps — Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law

* John Jeffries — Former dean of the University of Virginia School of Law


Produced and hosted by Matthew S. Schwartz. To comment on this episode, tag @BLaw and @SchwartzReports on Twitter!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices