Federalist Society SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-5-08 featuring Alan Smith

info@fed-soc.org — 5 May 2008 19:59:47 GMT

On April 23, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the employer or the employee bears the burden of persuasion as to whether an adverse employment decision challenged as age discrimination was based upon a "reasonable factor other than age." Attorney Alan Smith of Greehan, Taves, Pandak & Stoner discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 5-5-08 featuring Hans von Spakovsky

info@fed-soc.org — 5 May 2008 21:37:54 GMT

On April 28, 2008, in Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to an Indiana law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. The Court held that such a law does not unduly burden a citizen’s right to vote. Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-26-08 featuring Shay Dvoretsky

info@fed-soc.org — 29 Apr 2008 21:47:03 GMT

On February 20, 2008, the Supreme Court decided LaRue v. DeWolff, holding that although §502(a)(2) of ERISA does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, it does authorize recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant’s individual account. On February 26, 2008, in Sprint/United Management Co v. Mendelsohn, an employment discrimination case involving the admissibility of testimony by non-plaintiff employees regarding the conduct of other supervisors not alleged to have engaged in discriminatory behavior toward the plaintiff, the Court ruled that when the Tenth Circuit ruled that the district court had erred in excluding this evidence, the Court of Appeals itself erred in concluding that the District Court applied a per se rule and thus improperly engaged in its own analysis of the relevant factors under Rules 401 and 403, rather than remanding the case for the District Court to clarify its ruling. Shay Dvoretzky of Jones Day discusses these two employment law decisions.

SCOTUScast 4-29-08 featuring Tom Gede

info@fed-soc.org — 29 Apr 2008 21:42:23 GMT

On April 14, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle. The Court was asked to consider whether Indian tribal courts have authority to decide a civil lawsuit that involves business dealings between a company owned by a member of the tribe and a bank that owns land on a reservation, but itself is not owned by a tribe member. Tom Gede, of Counsel for Bingham McCutchen and Principal for Bingham Consulting Group, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-28-08 featuring Samuel Bray

info@fed-soc.org — 28 Apr 2008 21:02:07 GMT

On April 23, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in MetLife v. Glenn. The case asks whether an ERISA plan administrator that both evaluates and pays employee benefit claims operates under a conflict of interest and, if so, how such a conflict ought be weighed on judicial review of benefit determinations. Attorney Samuel Bray of Mayer Brown discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-28-08 featuring Kristin Hickman

info@fed-soc.org — 28 Apr 2008 20:31:24 GMT

On April 15, 2008, the Suprme Court decided United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., holding that a taxpayer seeking a refund for an invalid tax under the Export Clause of the Constitution must comply with the Internal Revenue Code's provisions for seeking refunds, including its time limits, and cannot bring suit directly under the Export Clause and the Tucker Act. University of Minnesota Law Professor Kristin Hickman discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-25-08 featuring Richard Epstein

info@fed-soc.org — 25 Apr 2008 16:38:08 GMT

On April 21, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture. The case asks whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in particular the “class-of-one” doctrine, extends to public employment decisions, prohibiting a government employer from intentionally treating an employee differently from similarly situated employees when it has no rational basis to do so. Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-24-08 featuring Benjamin Ginsberg

info@fed-soc.org — 24 Apr 2008 20:21:44 GMT

On April 22, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Davis v. FEC. The case asks whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's so-called "Millionaire's Amendment," which relaxes campaign finance limits on outside contributors for opponents of congressional candidates who spend more than $350,000 of their own money, violates either the First or Fifth Amendments. Patton Boggs' Benjamin Ginsberg discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-22-08 featuring Eileen O'Connor

info@fed-soc.org — 22 Apr 2008 17:41:09 GMT

On April 15, 2008, the Supreme Court decided MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, ruling that under the Commerce and Due Processs Clauses, the test for whether Illinois could tax Mead's gains on the sale of Lexis was whether the asset being sold, Lexis, was a unitary part of the business that Mead conducted in the taxing state, rather than (as the Illinois courts had ruled) whether Lexis served an operational function in Mead's business. Eileen O'Connor, a partner in Washington DC's Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, & Pittman, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-21-08 featuring Kent Scheidegger

info@fed-soc.org — 21 Apr 2008 18:08:50 GMT

On January 7, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Baze v. Rees, a case concerning the death penalty and Kentucky's form of lethal injection. The Court considered three questions: (1) does the Eighth Amendment prohibit means for carrying out a method of execution that create an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering as opposed to a substantial risk of the wanton infliction of pain? (2) do the means for carrying out an execution cause an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment if readily available alternatives that pose less risk of pain and suffering could be used? (3) does the continued use of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, individually or together, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment because lethal injections can be carried out by using other chemicals that pose less risk of pain and suffering? On April 16, 2008, the Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection protocol, which is fairly close to the protocol used in 36 states and by the federal government. There was no opinion for the Court, but rather a three Justice plurality opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, and concurrences in the result written by Justice Stevens, Justice Thomas (for himself and Justice Scalia), and Justice Breyer. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-21-08 featuring Richard Nagareda

info@fed-soc.org — 21 Apr 2008 17:31:45 GMT

On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Taylor v. Sturgell. At issue in the case is whether a FOIA request may be barred by res judicata on grounds the petitioner was "virtually represented" by a close associate who previously sought disclosure of the same documents. Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Richard Nagareda discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-21-08 featuring William Otis

info@fed-soc.org — 21 Apr 2008 16:49:12 GMT

On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kennedy v. Louisiana. The Court was asked to consider whether Louisiana's law authorizing the death penalty for child rape violates the 8th Amendment's Cruel & Unusual Clause. Bill Otis, former Chief of the Appellate Division in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-8-08 featuring Tom Gede

info@fed-soc.org — 8 Apr 2008 21:12:23 GMT

On March 17, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rothgery v. Gillespie County. The Court was asked to consider whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches to defendants brought before a magistrate and jailed, pending posting of bond, if prosecutors were not involved in the arrest or court appearance. On March 26, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in another Sixth Amendment case in Indiana v. Edwards. The Court was asked to consider whether the Sixth Amendment grants a defendant, found competent to stand trial, the right to represent himself at trial. Tom Gede of Bingham Consulting Group and of counsel to Bingham McCutchen LLP discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 4-1-08 featuring Kevin Newsom

info@fed-soc.org — 1 Apr 2008 20:44:48 GMT

On March 24, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Riley v. Kennedy. At issue in the case is whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required pre-clearance of Alabama's decision to return to a process for filling vacancies on a county commission through gubernatorial appointments rather than through special elections. Alabama's decision to return to the prior process was caused by the Alabama Supreme Court's invalidation, on Alabama Constitution separation of powers grounds, of the Alabama law specifying elections.

SCOTUScast 3-28-08 featuring Mark Behrens

info@fed-soc.org — 28 Mar 2008 22:11:52 GMT

In Hall Street Associates v. Mattel the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether or not a federal court can enforce an arbitration agreement that provides for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award than the narrow standard of review provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court held on March 25, 2008 that the FAA’s grounds for prompt vacatur and modification of awards are exclusive for parties seeking expedited review under the FAA. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Mark Behrens, a partner at the DC based law firm, Shook Hardy & Bacon, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-28-08 featuring William Otis

info@fed-soc.org — 28 Mar 2008 18:40:41 GMT

On March 25, 2008, the Court heard oral argument in United States v. Ressam. The Court was asked whether 18 U.S.C. 1844(h)(2), which mandates 10 years in prison for carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony, requires the explosives to be carried “in relation to” the underlying felony. William Otis, former chief of the appellate division in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-26-08 featuring Ron Rotunda

info@fed-soc.org — 26 Mar 2008 20:49:12 GMT

On March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated cases of Munaf v. Geren and Geren v. Omar on federal courts’ jurisdiction over habeas claims of U.S. citizens held in Iraq. George Mason University Law professor Ron Rotunda discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-25-08 featuring Vince Vitkowsky

info@fed-soc.org — 25 Mar 2008 22:21:25 GMT

On March 17, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, a case involving a dispute over the assets of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. The Court was asked whether the Philippines, having been dismissed from the interpleader action based on its successful assertion of sovereign immunity, had the right to appeal the district court’s determination that it is not an “indispensable” party under Rule 19(b); and whether they have the right to seek this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ opinion affirming the district court. Vince Vitkowsky, a partner in Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-25-08 featuring Rick Esenberg

info@fed-soc.org — 25 Mar 2008 20:32:48 GMT

On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court decided the case of Federal Express v. Holowecki. The Court held that an "intake questionnaire" submitted to the EEOC may suffice for the charge of discrimination that must be submitted pursuant to the ADEA. Marquette Law professor Richard Esenberg discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-24-08 featuring Andy Grewal

info@fed-soc.org — 24 Mar 2008 21:09:58 GMT

On March 3, 2008 the Court decided the case of Boulware v. United States. The Court held a distributee accused of criminal tax evasion may claim return-of-capital treatment without producing evidence that, when the distribution occurred, either he or the corporation intended a return of capital. Andy Grewal of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-24-08 featuring Kevin Marshall

info@fed-soc.org — 24 Mar 2008 18:45:58 GMT

On March 18 2008 the Court heard oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court was asked to consider whether the DC gun ban violates the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes. Kevin Marshall of Jones Day discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-20-08 featuring Miller Baker

info@fed-soc.org — 20 Mar 2008 20:53:25 GMT

On March 18, 2008, the Court decided the case of Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. The Court held that Washington's modified blanket primary system does not on its face violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' right to freedom of association by denying political parties control over which candidates to endorse. Miller Baker of McDermott Will & Emery discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-14-08 featuring Mark Perry

info@fed-soc.org — 14 Mar 2008 19:29:47 GMT

On February 20, 2008, the Supreme Court decided Preston v. Ferrer. The Court held that when parties agree to arbitrate all questions arising under a contract, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), supersedes state laws lodging primary jurisdiction in another forum, whether judicial or administrative. Mark Perry of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-5-08 featuring Matt McGill

info@fed-soc.org — 5 Mar 2008 16:48:19 GMT

On January 16, 2008, the Court decided the case of New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres. The Court held that New York’s system of choosing party nominees for the State Supreme Court does not violate the First Amendment. Gibson Dunn’s Matt McGill discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 3-3-08 featuring Ray Gifford

info@fed-soc.org — 3 Mar 2008 21:45:30 GMT

On February 19, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Morgan Stanley Capital v. Public Utility District. The case poses the following questions: 1) Under what conditions, if any, should the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have the power to invalidate facially valid wholesale energy contracts? 2) Did the unusual conditions of the energy market during the California energy crisis justify an exception to the FERC's general policy of respecting contracts set to the market rate? Kamlet Shepherd's Ray Gifford discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 2-28-08 with Ted Frank

info@fed-soc.org — 28 Feb 2008 21:18:40 GMT

On February 27, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument on Exxon v. Baker, a case involving the legality under federal maritime law of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The American Enterprise Institute’s Ted Frank discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 2-27-08 with Marcia Madsen

info@fed-soc.org — 28 Feb 2008 20:16:16 GMT

On February 26, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument on a case involving the issue of presentment under the False Claims Act: Allison Engine Co. v. the United States. The case poses the following question: Whether a plaintiff asserting a cause of action under Section 3729(a)(2) or Section 3729(a)(3) of the False Claims Act is required to prove that a false claim was submitted to the federal government, or whether it is sufficient to establish that the claim was paid using federal funds. Mayer Brown’s Marcia Madsen discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 2-26-08 with Richard Nagareda

info@fed-soc.org — 26 Feb 2008 18:15:13 GMT

On February 20, 2008 the Supreme Court decided Riegel v. Medtronic. In Riegel, the Court held that federal Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempt a state law claim seeking damages for injuries caused by a medical device that received pre-market approval from the Food and Drug Administration. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Professor Richard Nagareda of Vanderbilt University Law School discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 2-26-08 with Rae Vann

info@fed-soc.org — 26 Feb 2008 17:37:53 GMT

On February 20, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in CBOCS West v. Humphries, on whether employees may bring race retaliation claims under 42 USC 1981. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Rae Vann, General Counsel for the Equal Employment Advisory Council discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 2-22-08 with Richard Epstein

info@fed-soc.org — 22 Feb 2008 19:46:40 GMT

On February 20, 2008 the Supreme Court decided two cases about federal preemption: Riegel v. Medtronic and Rowe v. New Hampshire. In Riegel, the Court held that the federal Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempt a state law claim seeking damages for injuries caused by a medical device that received pre-market approval from the Food and Drug Administration. In Rowe, the Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts certain provisions of Maine law that, as part of Maine's efforts to prevent sale of tobacco to minors, require state-licensed shippers of tobacco products to use carriers that provide recipient verification services and, in prohibiting the knowing transportation of tobacco into the State to persons in Maine unless the sender or receiver of the shipment has a license to ship it, impute knowledge to a carrier that a shipment contains tobacco if it comes from a Maine-licensed tobacco dealer or is received from someone whose name appears on a list of unlicensed tobacco dealers distributed to package delivery companies. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Richard Epstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses these cases.

SCOTUScast 2-22-08 with Stephen McAllister

info@fed-soc.org — 22 Feb 2008 17:50:44 GMT

On February 20th, 2008 the Supreme Court decided Danforth v. Minnesota. The Court was asked to consider whether state supreme courts are required to use the standard announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), to determine whether United States Supreme Court decisions apply retroactively to state-court criminal cases, or whether a state court may apply state-law- or state-constitution-based retroactivity tests that afford application of Supreme Court decisions to a broader class of criminal defendants than the class defined by Teague.The Court held that Teague does not constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Kansas University Law School professor and Solicitor General of Kansas Stephen McAllister discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 1-23-08 with Chris Holman

info@fed-soc.org — 24 Jan 2008 22:03:03 GMT

On January 16, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. At issue is the ability of a patent holder to enforce post-sale restrictions on the use or resale of a patented product. In this episode of SCOTUScast, UMKC law professor Chris Holman discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 1-22-08 with Stephen Bainbridge

info@fed-soc.org — 22 Jan 2008 19:10:46 GMT

On January 15, 2008 the Supreme Court decided the Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta case. In a securities law case of paramount importance, the Court was asked to consider under what (if any) circumstances private investors can sue actors -- whether accountants, lawyers, financial advisors or other businesses -- that allegedly participate in a scheme to violate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court ruled that fraud claims are not allowed against third parties that did not directly mislead investors but were business partners with those who did. In this episode of SCOTUScast, UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge offers his own analysis of the case.

SCOTUScast 1-18-08 with Orin Kerr

info@fed-soc.org — 18 Jan 2008 21:03:48 GMT

On January 14th, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Virginia v. Moore. The Court was asked to consider whether the Fourth Amendment requires the suppression of evidence obtained incident to an arrest that is based on probable cause, where the arrest violates a provision of state law. In this episode of SCOTUScast, George Washington University School of Law professor Orin Kerr discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 1-16-08 with Gregory Sisk

info@fed-soc.org — 16 Jan 2008 21:05:48 GMT

On January 8th, 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the John R Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States case. The Court was asked to consider whether or not the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations is jurisdictional (and thus may not be waived by the parties). The Supreme Court decided that litigants bringing suit in the Court of Federal Claims must adhere to a strict six-year statute of limitations, even if the government is willing to waive that requirement. In this episode of SCOTUScast, University of St. Thomas School of Law Professor Gregory Sisk discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 1-14-08 with Allison Hayward

info@fed-soc.org — 14 Jan 2008 21:42:23 GMT

Crawford v. Marion County, argued in front of the Supreme Court on January 9th 2008, challenges an Indiana law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. Professor Allison Hayward, of George Mason University School of Law and former Chief of Staff and Counsel in the office of Federal Election Commission Commissioner Bradley A. Smith, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 1-10-08 with Juria Jones

info@fed-soc.org — 10 Jan 2008 21:07:09 GMT

On January 7, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dada v. Mukasey, a case concerning the immigration and naturalization process. At issue in the case is whether the time allotted for departure under a voluntary departure order is suspended when an alien files a motion to reopen removal proceedings. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Juria Jones, an Associate at DC's Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 1-7-08 with Kent Scheidegger

info@fed-soc.org — 7 Jan 2008 20:49:02 GMT

On January 7, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Baze v. Rees, a case concerning the death penalty and a popular form of lethal injection. Specifically the case asks three questions: (1) whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits means for carrying out a method of execution that create an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering as opposed to only a substantial risk of the wanton infliction of pain; (2) do the means for carrying out an execution cause an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment upon a showing that readily available alternatives that pose less risk of pain and suffering could be used ; (3) does the continued use of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, individually or together, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment because lethal injections can be carried out by using other chemicals that pose less risk of pain and suffering? In this episode of SCOTUScast, Attorney Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 12-21-07 with William Mercer

info@fed-soc.org — 21 Dec 2007 21:02:21 GMT

On December 10, 2007 the Supreme Court decided Kimbrough v. United States and Gall v. United States, two important cases dealing with the sentencing guidelines. In this episode of SCOTUScast, William Mercer, a United States Attorney for the District of Montana, discusses the cases.

SCOTUScast 12-17-07 with Stephanos Bibas

info@fed-soc.org — 17 Dec 2007 21:44:33 GMT

On December 10, 2007 the Supreme Court decided Kimbrough v. United States and Gall v. United States, two important cases dealing with the sentencing guidelines. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Stephanos Bibas, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 12-7-07 with Bradford Berenson

info@fed-soc.org — 7 Dec 2007 20:23:07 GMT

On December 5th, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Boumediene v. Bush. The case arises on a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of detainees currently being held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. These detainees challenge the legality and constitutionality of their detention as enemy combatants pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Bradford Berenson, a partner at Washington, DC’s Sidley Austin, offers his own analysis of the case.

SCOTUScast 12-7-07 with Richard Epstein

info@fed-soc.org — 7 Dec 2007 20:20:56 GMT

On December 4th, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Riegel v. Medtronic. The case asks whether or not the Medical Device Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempt a state law claim seeking damages for injuries caused by medical devices that received pre-market approval from the Food and Drug Administration. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Richard Epstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, offers his own analysis of the case.

SCOTUScast 12-6-07 with Shay Dvoretzky

info@fed-soc.org — 6 Dec 2007 23:49:33 GMT

On November 26th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in LaRue v. DeWolff, regarding whether section 502(a)(2) or 502(a)(3) of ERISA give rise to an action for breach of fiduciary duty by an employee claiming the trustees of a defined contribution retirement plan failed to make investments the employee directed and that would have a higher value than those the trustees actually made. On December 3rd, the Court heard arguments in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, which asks about the admissibility, in a case involving an employee's claim of employment discrimination based on the conduct of one supervisor, of testimony of other employees about the conduct of other supervisors. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Shay Dvoretzky, an attorney in the DC based law firm of Jones Day, discusses these two cases.

SCOTUScast 11-20-07 with Miller Baker

info@fed-soc.org — 20 Nov 2007 16:20:06 GMT

On October 1st, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party case. The Court was asked to consider whether or not Washington's "modified blanket primary" system violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of association by denying political parties control over which candidates to endorse? In this episode of SCOTUScast, Miller Baker, a partner in the DC based law firm, McDermott Will & Emery, offers his own analysis of the case.

SCOTUScast 11-20-07 with Mark Behrens

info@fed-soc.org — 20 Nov 2007 15:41:29 GMT

On November 7th, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Hall Street Associates v. Mattel case. The Court was asked to consider whether or not a federal court can enforce an arbitration agreement that provides for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award than the narrow standard of review provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Mark Behrens, a partner at the DC based law firm, Shook Hardy & Bacon, offers his own analysis of the case.

SCOTUScast 11-7-07 with Brannon Denning

info@fed-soc.org — 7 Nov 2007 18:45:28 GMT

On November 5th, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Kentucky Department of Revenue v. Davis case. The Court was asked to consider whether or not a state law that taxes interest income from bonds issued by other state and local governments while exempting interest income from in-state bonds violates the Commerce Clause. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Professor Brannon Denning of the Cumberland School of Law, Samford University discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 11-6-07 with Gregory Sisk

info@fed-soc.org — 6 Nov 2007 21:22:56 GMT

On November 6th, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the John R Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States case. The Court was asked to consider whether or not the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations is jurisdictional (and thus may not be waived by the parties). In this episode of SCOTUScast, University of St. Thomas School of Law professor Gregory Sisk offers his own analysis of the case.

SCOTUScast 11-2-07 with Stephen Mcallister

info@fed-soc.org — 2 Nov 2007 19:01:35 GMT

On October 31st, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Danforth v. Minnesota. The Court was asked to consider whether state supreme courts are required to use the standard announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), to determine whether United States Supreme Court decisions apply retroactively to state-court criminal cases, or may a state court apply state-law- or state-constitution-based retroactivity tests that afford application of Supreme Court decisions to a broader class of criminal defendants than the class defined by Teague. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Professor Stephen McAllister of Kansas University Law School discusses the case.

SCOTUScast 11-1-07 with Glenn Reynolds

info@fed-soc.org — 1 Nov 2007 19:28:57 GMT

On October 30th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for United States v. Williams. The Court was asked to consider whether section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18 U.S.C., which prohibits knowingly advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting material in a manner that reflects the belief, or is intended to cause another to believe, that the material is illegal child pornography, is overly broad and impermissibly vague, and thus facially unconstitutional. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Professor Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee College of Law, and of InstaPundit.com, discusses the case. In an upcoming episode of SCOTUScast, Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council offers some different thoughts on United States v. Williams.

SCOTUScast 10-24-07 with Stephen Bainbridge

info@fed-soc.org — 24 Oct 2007 17:11:40 GMT

On October 9th, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta case. In a securities law case of paramount importance, the Court is asked to consider under what (if any) circumstances private investors can sue actors--whether accountants, lawyers, financial advisors or other businesses--that allegedly participate in a scheme to violate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this episode of SCOTUScast, UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge offers his own analysis of the case.

SCOTUScast 10-11-07 with Ted Cruz

info@fed-soc.org — 11 Oct 2007 18:12:17 GMT

On October 10th, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Medellin v. Texas case. The issue is whether state courts, on their own or by presidential directive, must follow an International Court of Justice decision that violates state law and contradicts a U.S. Supreme Court decision. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who argued the Medellin v. Texas case on behalf of the state of Texas, offers his own analysis of the case.