Feed Editor 24 Feb 2007 04:05:23 GMT SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. The Society a not for profit educational organization of conservative and libertarian law students, law professors, and lawyers, founded upon the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. To supplement our scholars' analysis, we provide brief descriptions of the issues in the cases. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast http://fedsoc.server326.com/audio/SCOTUScast/SCOTUScast.xml 2007 its@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) Vocal en-us its@fed-soc.org The Federalist Society SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. The Society a not for profit educational organization of conservative and libertarian law students, law professors, and lawyers, founded upon the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. To supplement our scholars' analysis, we provide brief descriptions of the issues in the cases. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast The Federalist Society debate, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges, convention, constitution, government, supreme court, justices, ruling, scotus no The Federalist Society info@fed-soc.org http://www.fed-soc.org/imgLib/20080501_SCOTUScasticonsmall2.jpg http://www.fed-soc.org/audio/SCOTUScast/SCOTUScast.xml This audiocast feed contains audio files of legal experts discussing recent United States Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The case involved an as-applied challenge to the material support provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which make it a crime to provide support in the form of "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service" and "personnel" to entities designated by the Secretary of State as foreign terrorist organizations. The question was whether, as applied to plaintiffs, who wished to provide some of these forms of support to the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan (PKK) and the Libertaion Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the provisions would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. -- In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the provisions may constitutionally be applied to plaintiffs' proposed activities. The Court reasoned 1) that the terms "training," "expert advice or asistance," "service" and "personnel" provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, 2) that the terms did not include independent political advocacy but rather required concerted activity with the designated organizations, 3) that the Government's interest in combatting terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order, 4) the judgment of Congress and the Executive Branch that the speech and activities plaintiffs proposed to undertake would assist these groups with a broader strategy of terrorism was reasonable as this seemed entirely foreseeable, and 5) that § 2339B does not penalize mere association with these groups, but only prohibits the act of giving material support. -- To discuss the case, we have Charlotte School of Law Professor D. Scott Broyles. 30 Jul 2010 03:30:15 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1922/pub_detail.asp D. Scott Broyles http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-29-10-Broyles.mp3 SCOTUScast 07-29-10 featuring D. Scott Broyles On June 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The case involved an as-applied challenge to the material support provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which make it a crime to provide support in the form of "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service" and "personnel" to entities designated by the Secretary of State as foreign terrorist organizations. The question was whether, as applied to plaintiffs, who wished to provide some of these forms of support to the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan (PKK) and the Libertaion Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the provisions would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. -- In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the provisions may constitutionally be applied to plaintiffs' proposed activities. The Court reasoned 1) that the terms "training," "expert advice or asistance," "service" and "personnel" provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, 2) that the terms did not include independent political advocacy but rather required concerted activity with the designated organizations, 3) that the Government's interest in combatting terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order, 4) the judgment of Congress and the Executive Branch that the speech and activities plaintiffs proposed to undertake would assist these groups with a broader strategy of terrorism was reasonable as this seemed entirely foreseeable, and 5) that § 2339B does not penalize mere association with these groups, but only prohibits the act of giving material support. -- To discuss the case, we have Charlotte School of Law Professor D. Scott Broyles. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 09:30 no On March 31, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. The question in this case was whether Padilla’s counsel had an obligation under the Sixth Amendment (as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment) to advise him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a particular crime, namely, that doing so would result in his removal from the United States. In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment did require Padilla's lawyer to tell Padilla that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation. -- To discuss the case, we have United States Military Academy at West Point Department of Social Sciences Professor Margaret D. Stock. 23 Jul 2010 21:20:07 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1896/pub_detail.asp Margaret D. Stock http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-23-10-Stock.mp3 SCOTUScast 07-23-2010 featuring Margaret Stock On March 31, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. The question in this case was whether Padilla’s counsel had an obligation under the Sixth Amendment (as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment) to advise him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a particular crime, namely, that doing so would result in his removal from the United States. In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment did require Padilla's lawyer to tell Padilla that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation. -- To discuss the case, we have United States Military Academy at West Point Department of Social Sciences Professor Margaret D. Stock. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 16:35 no On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Jones v. Harris Associates. The question in this case was what a mutual fund shareholder must prove in order to show that a mutual fund investment adviser breached the "fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services" that is imposed by Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. -- In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that to be held liable under Section 36(b), an investment adviser must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length bargaining. -- Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have George Mason University School of Law Professor D. Bruce Johnsen. 23 Jul 2010 03:41:28 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1895/pub_detail.asp D. Bruce Johnsen http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-22-10-Johnsen(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 07-22-10 featuring D. Bruce Johnsen On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Jones v. Harris Associates. The question in this case was what a mutual fund shareholder must prove in order to show that a mutual fund investment adviser breached the "fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services" that is imposed by Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. -- In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that to be held liable under Section 36(b), an investment adviser must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length bargaining. -- Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have George Mason University School of Law Professor D. Bruce Johnsen. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 20:20 no On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Doe v. Reed. In this case, the Court was asked whether compelled disclosure of signatory information on a referendum petition violated the First Amendment. -- In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that although petition-signatories may have a right to nondisclosure in particular cases, they do not have a general constitutional right to nondisclosure. The Court declined to answer whether, in this particular referendum on expanding the rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners, including same-sex partners, the signatories' interest in avoiding persecution outweighed the state's interest in promoting transparency, and assigned this task to a lower court. -- To discuss the case, we have the Capital University Law School Josiah H. Blackmore II and Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law Bradley A. Smith. 20 Jul 2010 14:56:20 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1920/pub_detail.asp Bradley A. Smith http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-19-10-Smith(002).mp3 SCOTUScast 07-19-10 featuring Bradley A. Smith On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Doe v. Reed. In this case, the Court was asked whether compelled disclosure of signatory information on a referendum petition violated the First Amendment. -- In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that although petition-signatories may have a right to nondisclosure in particular cases, they do not have a general constitutional right to nondisclosure. The Court declined to answer whether, in this particular referendum on expanding the rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners, including same-sex partners, the signatories' interest in avoiding persecution outweighed the state's interest in promoting transparency, and assigned this task to a lower court. -- To discuss the case, we have the Capital University Law School Josiah H. Blackmore II and Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law Bradley A. Smith. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 15:35 no On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The question in this case was whether provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, violate the separation of powers doctrine, the Appointments Clause, or both. -- In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court, among other things, held that 1) the dual for-cause limitations on the removal of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board members contravene the Constitution's vesting of "the executive power" in the President; 2) the removal provisions are severable from the rest of the statute; and 3) the Board’s appointment is consistent with the Appointments Clause. -- To discuss the case, we have Northwestern University George C. Dix Professor of Law Steven G. Calabresi. 14 Jul 2010 03:50:26 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1913/pub_detail.asp Steven G. Calabresi http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-13-10-Calabresi.mp3 SCOTUScast 07-13-10 featuring Steven G. Calabresi On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The question in this case was whether provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, violate the separation of powers doctrine, the Appointments Clause, or both. -- In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court, among other things, held that 1) the dual for-cause limitations on the removal of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board members contravene the Constitution's vesting of "the executive power" in the President; 2) the removal provisions are severable from the rest of the statute; and 3) the Board’s appointment is consistent with the Appointments Clause. -- To discuss the case, we have Northwestern University George C. Dix Professor of Law Steven G. Calabresi. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 23:26 no On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The question in this case was whether the Florida Supreme Court redefined littoral property owners' rights in such a fashion as to commit a "judicial taking" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not take property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because its ruling was consistent with Florida's previously established property law. In addition, Justice Scalia, along with three other justices, maintained that if a court declares that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists, then that court has taken that property in violation of the Takings Clause. To discuss the case, we have the Pacific Legal Foundation's Director of Litigation, James S. Burling. 13 Jul 2010 03:30:33 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1909/pub_detail.asp James S. Burling http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-12-10-Burling.mp3 SCOTUScast 07-12-10 featuring James S. Burling On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The question in this case was whether the Florida Supreme Court redefined littoral property owners' rights in such a fashion as to commit a "judicial taking" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not take property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because its ruling was consistent with Florida's previously established property law. In addition, Justice Scalia, along with three other justices, maintained that if a court declares that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists, then that court has taken that property in violation of the Takings Clause. To discuss the case, we have the Pacific Legal Foundation's Director of Litigation, James S. Burling. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 15:05 no On March 8, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Milavetz v. United States. The questions in this case were (1) whether an attorney, who provides bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for consideration and who does not fall within one of the five exceptions, is a "debt relief agency" for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. 101(12A); (2) whether 11 U.S.C. 526(a)(4) violates the First Amendment; and (3) whether 11 U.S.C. 528(a) and (b)(2) violate the First Amendment. In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held three things: (1) attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are debt relief agencies for the purposes of Section 101(12A); (2) Section 526(a)(4) prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor is filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose, and thus does not violate the First Amendment; and (3) Section 528's disclosure requirements, (a) and (b)(2), are "reasonably related to the [Government's] interest in preventing [the] deception of consumers and thus are constitutional as applied to Milavetz. Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court except for footnote 3. He also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.Justice Thomas joined the opinion of the Court except for Part III-C. He also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. To discuss the case, we have Marie Gryphon, who is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy. 9 Jul 2010 23:09:39 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1892/pub_detail.asp Marie Gryphon http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-09-10-Gryphon.mp3 SCOTUScast 07-09-10 featuring Marie Gryphon On March 8, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Milavetz v. United States. The questions in this case were (1) whether an attorney, who provides bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for consideration and who does not fall within one of the five exceptions, is a "debt relief agency" for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. 101(12A); (2) whether 11 U.S.C. 526(a)(4) violates the First Amendment; and (3) whether 11 U.S.C. 528(a) and (b)(2) violate the First Amendment. In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held three things: (1) attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are debt relief agencies for the purposes of Section 101(12A); (2) Section 526(a)(4) prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor is filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose, and thus does not violate the First Amendment; and (3) Section 528's disclosure requirements, (a) and (b)(2), are "reasonably related to the [Government's] interest in preventing [the] deception of consumers and thus are constitutional as applied to Milavetz. Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court except for footnote 3. He also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.Justice Thomas joined the opinion of the Court except for Part III-C. He also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. To discuss the case, we have Marie Gryphon, who is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 08:39 no On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decisions in three honest services fraud cases: Skilling v. United States, Black v. United States, and Weyrauch v. United States. The issues in these cases concerned the mail and wire fraud statutes, which make it a federal crime to use the mail or wires in furtherance of "any scheme or artifice to defraud." These cases also concern the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which reads as follows: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term, 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." To discuss the decisions, we have John Shu, who is an attorney at Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth. 8 Jul 2010 02:58:00 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1906/pub_detail.asp John Shu http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-07-10-Shu.mp3 SCOTUScast 07-07-10 featuring John Shu On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decisions in three honest services fraud cases: Skilling v. United States, Black v. United States, and Weyrauch v. United States. The issues in these cases concerned the mail and wire fraud statutes, which make it a federal crime to use the mail or wires in furtherance of "any scheme or artifice to defraud." These cases also concern the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which reads as follows: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term, 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." To discuss the decisions, we have John Shu, who is an attorney at Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 11:31 no On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in American Needle v. NFL. The question in this case was whether the formation of National Football League Properties (NFLP) by the 32 NFL teams and its activities in licensing their team logos collectively and the like was a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade such that it would fall within the scope of §1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In an unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Court held the teams' own concerted trademark licensing activities, as well as those that the teams conducted by and through the NFLP, were not categorically beyond the Sherman Antitrust Act's coverage, but should instead be evaluated for legality under the rule of reason. To discuss the case, we have Willamette University College of Law Professor Jeffrey Standen. 7 Jul 2010 18:14:52 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1891/pub_detail.asp Jeffrey Standen http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-07-10-Standen(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 07-07-10 featuring Jeffrey Standen On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in American Needle v. NFL. The question in this case was whether the formation of National Football League Properties (NFLP) by the 32 NFL teams and its activities in licensing their team logos collectively and the like was a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade such that it would fall within the scope of §1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In an unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Court held the teams' own concerted trademark licensing activities, as well as those that the teams conducted by and through the NFLP, were not categorically beyond the Sherman Antitrust Act's coverage, but should instead be evaluated for legality under the rule of reason. To discuss the case, we have Willamette University College of Law Professor Jeffrey Standen. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 17:49 no On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The question in this case was whether the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms applicable to the States. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held 5 to 4 that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, which the Court recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, applicable to the States. Four Justices based this ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas agreed with the holding, but based his opinion on the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. To discuss the case, we have Northwestern University School of Law Professor Steven G. Calabresi. 2 Jul 2010 20:29:49 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1905/pub_detail.asp Steven G. Calabresi http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-07-02-2010-Calabresi.mp3 SCOTUScast 07-02-2010 featuring Steven G. Calabresi On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The question in this case was whether the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms applicable to the States. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held 5 to 4 that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, which the Court recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, applicable to the States. Four Justices based this ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas agreed with the holding, but based his opinion on the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. To discuss the case, we have Northwestern University School of Law Professor Steven G. Calabresi. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 14:36 no On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The question in this case was whether a public university's law school may deny funding and other benefits to a religious student organization because the organization refuses to abide by a non-discrimination policy that would prevent it from requiring its officers and voting members to agree with its core beliefs, including beliefs concerning homosexual conduct. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the petitioner, the Hastings Christian Legal Society chapter, was bound by its stipulation that Hastings’ policy required student organizations to admit all comers in order to participate in the Registered Student Organization program. The Court further ruled that this policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to a limited public forum consistent with the First Amendment. To discuss the case, we have University of Chicago and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein, who was Counsel of Record on a brief submitted by the Cato Institute in support of the petitioner. 30 Jun 2010 15:17:33 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1903/pub_detail.asp Richard A. Epstein http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-06-30-2010-Epstein-2.mp3 SCOTUScast 06-30-10 featuring Richard A. Epstein On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The question in this case was whether a public university's law school may deny funding and other benefits to a religious student organization because the organization refuses to abide by a non-discrimination policy that would prevent it from requiring its officers and voting members to agree with its core beliefs, including beliefs concerning homosexual conduct. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the petitioner, the Hastings Christian Legal Society chapter, was bound by its stipulation that Hastings’ policy required student organizations to admit all comers in order to participate in the Registered Student Organization program. The Court further ruled that this policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to a limited public forum consistent with the First Amendment. To discuss the case, we have University of Chicago and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein, who was Counsel of Record on a brief submitted by the Cato Institute in support of the petitioner. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 18:13 no On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bilski v. Kappos. The question in this case was whether a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular article into a different state or thing in order to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that although business methods are not categorically unpatentable, the particular patent at issue in this case was an unpatentable "abstract idea" precluded from patentability by the Court’s precedents. To discuss the case, we have University of Chicago Law School and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein, who signed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner. 30 Jun 2010 15:16:04 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1902/pub_detail.asp Richard A. Epstein http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-06-30-10-Epstein.mp3 SCOTUScast 06-30-2010 featuring Richard A . Epstein On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bilski v. Kappos. The question in this case was whether a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular article into a different state or thing in order to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that although business methods are not categorically unpatentable, the particular patent at issue in this case was an unpatentable "abstract idea" precluded from patentability by the Court’s precedents. To discuss the case, we have University of Chicago Law School and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein, who signed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 11:27 no On May 3, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Renico v. Lett. The question in this case was whether a federal District Court erroneously granted a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In this case, the District Court issued the writ to Reginald Lett, the respondent, on the ground that his Michigan murder conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the Michigan Supreme Court's application of federal law was not unreasonable and that the lower federal courts misapplied AEDPA's deferential standard of review. To discuss the case, we have Kent S. Scheidegger, who is the Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. 23 Jun 2010 19:27:18 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1898/pub_detail.asp Kent S. Scheidegger http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-06-23-10-Scheidegger.mp3 SCOTUScast 06-23-2010 featuring Kent S. Scheidegger On May 3, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Renico v. Lett. The question in this case was whether a federal District Court erroneously granted a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In this case, the District Court issued the writ to Reginald Lett, the respondent, on the ground that his Michigan murder conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the Michigan Supreme Court's application of federal law was not unreasonable and that the lower federal courts misapplied AEDPA's deferential standard of review. To discuss the case, we have Kent S. Scheidegger, who is the Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 06:17 no On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Lewis v. City of Chicago. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from using employment practices that cause a disparate impact on the basis of race, among other bases. Title VII also requires plaintiffs to file a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before beginning a federal lawsuit. The question in this case was whether a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice -- in this case, an employer’s decision to exclude employment applicants who did not achieve a certain score on an examination -- may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later application of that practice. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that a plaintiff who does not file a charge challenging the adoption of a practice may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later application of that practice as long as he alleges each of the elements of a disparate impact claim. To discuss the case, we have Elizabeth K. Dorminey, who is Of Counsel with Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. 17 Jun 2010 20:06:58 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1893/pub_detail.asp Elizabeth K. (Betsy) Dorminey http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-06-17-10-Dorminey(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 06-17-2010 featuring Elizabeth K. Dorminey On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Lewis v. City of Chicago. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from using employment practices that cause a disparate impact on the basis of race, among other bases. Title VII also requires plaintiffs to file a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before beginning a federal lawsuit. The question in this case was whether a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice -- in this case, an employer’s decision to exclude employment applicants who did not achieve a certain score on an examination -- may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later application of that practice. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that a plaintiff who does not file a charge challenging the adoption of a practice may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later application of that practice as long as he alleges each of the elements of a disparate impact claim. To discuss the case, we have Elizabeth K. Dorminey, who is Of Counsel with Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 10:33 no On April 27, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Merck v. Reynolds. The case involves a securities fraud action brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claiming that Merck knowingly misrepresented the heart-attack risks associated with Vioxx. The question in the case is what kind of evidence an investor plaintiff must have of scienter in order for the two year statute of limitations, which bars actions brought "after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation," to start running. The applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 1658(b), also bars actions brought five years after the violation. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that the two year statute of limitations starts to run 1) when the plaintiff did in fact discover or 2) when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation -- whichever comes first. The Court also held that the facts constituting the violation include the fact of scienter, which is a mental state that embraces the intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. Finally, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs' state of knowledge during the period in contention did not satisfy this standard and therefore the action could proceed. To discuss the case, we have Dechert LLP Partner Steven A. Engel. Mr. Engel was the Counsel of Record on a brief submitted by the Washington Legal Foundation in support of the petitioners. 9 Jun 2010 20:17:19 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1886/pub_detail.asp Steven A. Engel http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-06-08-10-Engel.mp3 SCOTUScast 06-08-2010 featuring Steven A. Engel On April 27, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Merck v. Reynolds. The case involves a securities fraud action brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claiming that Merck knowingly misrepresented the heart-attack risks associated with Vioxx. The question in the case is what kind of evidence an investor plaintiff must have of scienter in order for the two year statute of limitations, which bars actions brought "after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation," to start running. The applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 1658(b), also bars actions brought five years after the violation. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that the two year statute of limitations starts to run 1) when the plaintiff did in fact discover or 2) when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation -- whichever comes first. The Court also held that the facts constituting the violation include the fact of scienter, which is a mental state that embraces the intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. Finally, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs' state of knowledge during the period in contention did not satisfy this standard and therefore the action could proceed. To discuss the case, we have Dechert LLP Partner Steven A. Engel. Mr. Engel was the Counsel of Record on a brief submitted by the Washington Legal Foundation in support of the petitioners. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 14:34 no On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Salazar v. Buono. The questions in this case were 1) whether Buono had Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and 2) whether an Act of Congress that transferred ownership of government land (on which the religious symbol resided) to a private entity was a permissible remedy if an Establishment Clause violation existed. In a series of opinions, none of which was joined by a majority of the Court, the Court ruled that Buono had standing to bring the suit, but that the case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. To discuss the case, we have Villanova University School of Law Associate Professor Michael P. Moreland. 28 May 2010 16:48:47 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1883/pub_detail.asp Michael P. Moreland http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-28-10-Moreland(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 05-28-2010 featuring Michael P. Moreland On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Salazar v. Buono. The questions in this case were 1) whether Buono had Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and 2) whether an Act of Congress that transferred ownership of government land (on which the religious symbol resided) to a private entity was a permissible remedy if an Establishment Clause violation existed. In a series of opinions, none of which was joined by a majority of the Court, the Court ruled that Buono had standing to bring the suit, but that the case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. To discuss the case, we have Villanova University School of Law Associate Professor Michael P. Moreland. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 13:14 no On May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Graham v. Florida. The question in this case was whether the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole on a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide offense violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. By a vote of 6-3 the, Court struck down the sentence. In an opinion for the Court written by Justice Kennedy and joined by four Justices, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment on the ground that the particular sentence at issue in this case was unconstitutionally disproportionate under the Court's precedents. To discuss the case, we have University of Florida Levin College of Law Assistant Professor John F. Stinneford. 26 May 2010 16:42:59 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1882/pub_detail.asp John F. Stinneford http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-26-10-Stinneford(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 05-26-10 featuring John F. Stinneford On May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Graham v. Florida. The question in this case was whether the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole on a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide offense violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. By a vote of 6-3 the, Court struck down the sentence. In an opinion for the Court written by Justice Kennedy and joined by four Justices, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment on the ground that the particular sentence at issue in this case was unconstitutionally disproportionate under the Court's precedents. To discuss the case, we have University of Florida Levin College of Law Assistant Professor John F. Stinneford. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 13:25 no On May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in United States v. Comstock. The question in this case was whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. §4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. -- Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined. The Court held that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress a sufficient amount of authority to enact §4248. Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito each filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Scalia joined, except for Part III-A-1-b. -- To discuss the case, we have University of Kansas School of Law Professor Stephen R. McAllister and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, who is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and the Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Ms. Erin Sheley, the Deputy Director of the Federalist Society's Faculty Division, is the discussion's moderator. 25 May 2010 18:08:15 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1879/pub_detail.asp Stephen R. McAllister, Ilya Shapiro, Erin Sheley http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-25-10-McAllister-Shapiro-Sheley(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 05-25-10 featuring Stephen R. McAllister, Ilya Shapiro, & Erin Sheley On May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in United States v. Comstock. The question in this case was whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. §4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. -- Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined. The Court held that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress a sufficient amount of authority to enact §4248. Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito each filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Scalia joined, except for Part III-A-1-b. -- To discuss the case, we have University of Kansas School of Law Professor Stephen R. McAllister and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, who is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and the Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Ms. Erin Sheley, the Deputy Director of the Federalist Society's Faculty Division, is the discussion's moderator. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 22:03 no On February 23 and 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decisions in Florida v. Powell and Maryland v. Shatzer respectively. The question in Florida v. Powell was whether the warnings the defendant received before interrogation adequately conveyed his right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, which is a right that was established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The question in Maryland v. Shatzer was whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place three years later. -- In Florida v. Powell, Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor joined in its entirety, and which Justice Breyer joined in part. The Court held that advising a suspect that he has the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of the law enforcement officer's questions and that he can invoke that right at any time during the questioning satisfies Miranda. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Breyer joined in part. -- In Maryland v. Shatzer, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joined. The Court held that because Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards v. Arizona does not mandate the suppression of Shatzer's later statements. Justice Thomas joined Part III of the opinion of the Court and also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. -- To discuss these cases, we have Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Craig M. Bradley. 24 May 2010 22:56:07 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1878/pub_detail.asp Craig M. Bradley http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-24-10-Bradley(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 05-24-10 featuring Craig M. Bradley On February 23 and 24, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decisions in Florida v. Powell and Maryland v. Shatzer respectively. The question in Florida v. Powell was whether the warnings the defendant received before interrogation adequately conveyed his right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, which is a right that was established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The question in Maryland v. Shatzer was whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place three years later. -- In Florida v. Powell, Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor joined in its entirety, and which Justice Breyer joined in part. The Court held that advising a suspect that he has the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of the law enforcement officer's questions and that he can invoke that right at any time during the questioning satisfies Miranda. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Breyer joined in part. -- In Maryland v. Shatzer, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joined. The Court held that because Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards v. Arizona does not mandate the suppression of Shatzer's later statements. Justice Thomas joined Part III of the opinion of the Court and also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. -- To discuss these cases, we have Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Craig M. Bradley. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 13:05 no On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Beard v. Kindler. This case concerns the adequate state ground doctrine, which, among other things, precludes habeas review of a conviction that rests on an adequate state ground. The question in this case was whether applications of a state rule may constitute an adequate state ground even though, under the relevant state rule, dismissal of these motions is discretionary rather than mandatory. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all of the other Justices joined, except Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. The Court held that a state procedural rule is not automatically "inadequate" under the adequate state ground doctrine -- and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review -- because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion that Justice Thomas joined. To discuss the case, we have Southern University Law Center Professor Michelle R. Ghetti. 17 May 2010 16:49:04 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1872/pub_detail.asp Michelle R. Ghetti http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-17-10-Ghetti(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 05-17-10 featuring Michelle R. Ghetti On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Beard v. Kindler. This case concerns the adequate state ground doctrine, which, among other things, precludes habeas review of a conviction that rests on an adequate state ground. The question in this case was whether applications of a state rule may constitute an adequate state ground even though, under the relevant state rule, dismissal of these motions is discretionary rather than mandatory. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all of the other Justices joined, except Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. The Court held that a state procedural rule is not automatically "inadequate" under the adequate state ground doctrine -- and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review -- because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion that Justice Thomas joined. To discuss the case, we have Southern University Law Center Professor Michelle R. Ghetti. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 25:09 no On April 27, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corporation. The question in this case was whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are "silent" on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. In a 5-3 opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. To discuss the case, we have Timothy Sandefur, who is a National Litigation Center Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Mr. Sandefur submitted an amicus brief in support of Stolt-Nielsen. He also submitted an amicus brief in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, a case that he mentions in this podcast. 6 May 2010 19:55:45 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1868/pub_detail.asp Timothy Sandefur http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-06-10-Sandefur.mp3 SCOTUScast 05-06-10 featuring Timothy Sandefur On April 27, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corporation. The question in this case was whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are "silent" on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. In a 5-3 opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. To discuss the case, we have Timothy Sandefur, who is a National Litigation Center Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Mr. Sandefur submitted an amicus brief in support of Stolt-Nielsen. He also submitted an amicus brief in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, a case that he mentions in this podcast. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 08:57 no On March 29, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. The case concerns the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. To discuss the case, we have Hofstra University School of Law Associate Professor Ronald J. Colombo. Professor Colombo joined a brief in support of the respondent. 4 May 2010 16:36:08 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1864/pub_detail.asp Ronald J. Colombo http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-04-10-Colombo.mp3 SCOTUScast 05-04-10 featuring Ronald J. Colombo On March 29, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. The case concerns the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. To discuss the case, we have Hofstra University School of Law Associate Professor Ronald J. Colombo. Professor Colombo joined a brief in support of the respondent. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 13:29 no On January 12, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Comstock. The question in this case is whether Congress had the constitutional authority enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. To discuss the case, we have University of Kansas School of Law Professor Stephen R. McAllister and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, who is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and the Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Ms. Erin Sheley, the Deputy Director of the Federalist Society's Faculty Division, is the discussion's moderator. 3 May 2010 15:52:43 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1858/pub_detail.asp Stephen R. McAllister, Ilya Shapiro, Erin Sheley http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-05-03-10-McAllister-&-Shapiro.mp3 SCOTUScast 05-03-10 featuring Stephen R. McAllister, Ilya Shapiro, & Erin Sheley On January 12, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Comstock. The question in this case is whether Congress had the constitutional authority enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. To discuss the case, we have University of Kansas School of Law Professor Stephen R. McAllister and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, who is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and the Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Ms. Erin Sheley, the Deputy Director of the Federalist Society's Faculty Division, is the discussion's moderator. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 32:01 no On April 20, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in United States v. Stevens. The question in this case was whether 18 U.S.C. 48, which prohibits the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty, violates the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that Section 48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. To discuss the case, we have Winston & Strawn litigation attorney Jacob R. Loshin. Mr. Loshin was on an amicus brief in support of the respondent for the case. 27 Apr 2010 15:58:18 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1855/pub_detail.asp Jacob R. Loshin http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-04-27-10.mp3 SCOTUScast 04-27-10 featuring Jacob R. Loshin On April 20, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in United States v. Stevens. The question in this case was whether 18 U.S.C. 48, which prohibits the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty, violates the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that Section 48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. To discuss the case, we have Winston & Strawn litigation attorney Jacob R. Loshin. Mr. Loshin was on an amicus brief in support of the respondent for the case. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 11:46 no On April 19, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The question in this case is whether a public university's law school may deny funding and other benefits to a religious student organization because the organization refuses to abide by a non-discrimination policy that would prevent it from requiring its officers and voting members to agree with its core beliefs, including beliefs concerning homosexual conduct. To discuss the case, we have University of Chicago School of Law and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein, who was Counsel of Record on a brief submitted by the Cato Institute in support of the petitioner. 23 Apr 2010 17:10:58 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1853/pub_detail.asp Richard A. Epstein http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-04-23-10-Epstein.mp3 SCOTUScast 04-23-10 featuring Richard A. Epstein On April 19, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The question in this case is whether a public university's law school may deny funding and other benefits to a religious student organization because the organization refuses to abide by a non-discrimination policy that would prevent it from requiring its officers and voting members to agree with its core beliefs, including beliefs concerning homosexual conduct. To discuss the case, we have University of Chicago School of Law and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein, who was Counsel of Record on a brief submitted by the Cato Institute in support of the petitioner. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 14:13 no On December 7, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The question in this case is whether provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which establish the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, violate the separation of powers doctrine, the Appointments Clause, or both. To discuss the case, we have Villanova University School of Law Professor Tuan Samahon. 15 Apr 2010 21:59:59 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1848/pub_detail.asp Tuan Samahon http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-04-15-10-Samahon.mp3 SCOTUScast 04-15-10 featuring Tuan Samahon On December 7, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The question in this case is whether provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which establish the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, violate the separation of powers doctrine, the Appointments Clause, or both. To discuss the case, we have Villanova University School of Law Professor Tuan Samahon. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 10:57 no On January 20, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Kucana v. Holder. The case concerned whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which bars judicial review of discretionary actions of the Attorney General, applies to decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals on motions to reopen a case. The Attorney General derives authority for these discretionary actions from "subchapter II of the Immigration and Nationality Act." In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the statute's proscription of judicial review applies only to determinations made discretionary by statute and not to determinations declared discretionary by the Attorney General through regulation. Justice Alito filed a separate opinion; he concurred in the judgment. To discuss the case, we have United States Military Academy at West Point Department of Law Professor Margaret D. Stock. 7 Apr 2010 19:01:10 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1809/pub_detail.asp Margaret D. Stock http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/2427_SCOTUScast-04-06-10-Stock(002).mp3 SCOTUScast 04-06-10 featuring Margaret D. Stock On January 20, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Kucana v. Holder. The case concerned whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which bars judicial review of discretionary actions of the Attorney General, applies to decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals on motions to reopen a case. The Attorney General derives authority for these discretionary actions from "subchapter II of the Immigration and Nationality Act." In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the statute's proscription of judicial review applies only to determinations made discretionary by statute and not to determinations declared discretionary by the Attorney General through regulation. Justice Alito filed a separate opinion; he concurred in the judgment. To discuss the case, we have United States Military Academy at West Point Department of Law Professor Margaret D. Stock. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 09:39 no On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Johnson v. United States. The question in this case was whether a prior state conviction for battery was a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, where battery under the state law at issue includes any unconsented touching. In a 7-2 decision delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that it does not because the Armed Career Criminal Act defines a violent felony as one that has as one of its elements the use of "force." The Court ruled that a state law that criminalizes unconsented touching includes some conduct that does not involve force, and thus force is not an element of the offense as required by the Armed Career Criminal Act. To discuss the case, we have Ave Maria School of Law Assistant Professor Kevin Govern. 23 Mar 2010 21:25:36 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1807/pub_detail.asp Kevin Govern http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-03-23-10-Govern(002).mp3 SCOTUScast 03-23-2010 featuring Kevin Govern On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Johnson v. United States. The question in this case was whether a prior state conviction for battery was a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, where battery under the state law at issue includes any unconsented touching. In a 7-2 decision delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that it does not because the Armed Career Criminal Act defines a violent felony as one that has as one of its elements the use of "force." The Court ruled that a state law that criminalizes unconsented touching includes some conduct that does not involve force, and thus force is not an element of the offense as required by the Armed Career Criminal Act. To discuss the case, we have Ave Maria School of Law Assistant Professor Kevin Govern. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 12:08 no On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter. In this case, the Court considered whether a party may immediately appeal a discovery order to disclose materials said to be covered by the attorney-client privilege. In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that disclosure orders that are adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The Court reasoned that post-judgment appeals, along with other review mechanisms, were sufficient to protect the rights of litigants. Justice Thomas filed a separate opinion; he concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. To discuss the case, we have University of Illinois College of Law Professor Paul Stancil. 9 Mar 2010 21:15:40 GMT https://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1790/pub_detail.asp Paul J. Stancil https://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-03-09-10-Stancil.mp3 SCOTUScast 03-09-2010 featuring Paul Stancil On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter. In this case, the Court considered whether a party may immediately appeal a discovery order to disclose materials said to be covered by the attorney-client privilege. In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that disclosure orders that are adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The Court reasoned that post-judgment appeals, along with other review mechanisms, were sufficient to protect the rights of litigants. Justice Thomas filed a separate opinion; he concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. To discuss the case, we have University of Illinois College of Law Professor Paul Stancil. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 12:38 no On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The question in this case is whether the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms applicable to the States. To discuss the case, we have Clark Neily, who is a Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, and signed an amicus brief in support of McDonald, and w have Marquette University Law School Professor J. Gordon Hylton, who is on an amicus brief in support of the City of Chicago. Northwestern University School of Law George C. Dix Professor Steven Calabresi moderates the discussion. 3 Mar 2010 22:06:38 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1788/pub_detail.asp J. Gordon Hylton, Clark Neily, Steven G. Calabresi http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-03-03-10-Hylton-Neily-Calabresi.mp3 SCOTUScast 03-03-10 featuring J. Gordon Hylton, Clark Neily, & Steven G. Calabresi On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The question in this case is whether the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms applicable to the States. To discuss the case, we have Clark Neily, who is a Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, and signed an amicus brief in support of McDonald, and w have Marquette University Law School Professor J. Gordon Hylton, who is on an amicus brief in support of the City of Chicago. Northwestern University School of Law George C. Dix Professor Steven Calabresi moderates the discussion. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 46:22 no On February 23, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Hertz Corporation v. Friend. In this case, the Court considered the definition of a corporation’s principal place of business for the purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that a corporation’s principal place of business is "the place where a corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, i.e. its ‘nerve center,’ which will typically be found at its corporate headquarters." To discuss the case, we have Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick. 1 Mar 2010 22:57:37 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1787/pub_detail.asp Brian Fitzpatrick http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-03-01-10-Fitzpatrick(002).mp3 SCOTUScast 03-01-10 featuring Brian Fitzpatrick On February 23, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Hertz Corporation v. Friend. In this case, the Court considered the definition of a corporation’s principal place of business for the purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In a 9-0 decision delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that a corporation’s principal place of business is "the place where a corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, i.e. its ‘nerve center,’ which will typically be found at its corporate headquarters." To discuss the case, we have Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 10:53 no On January 13, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Needle v. National Football League. The question in this case is whether the NFL teams violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when they awarded Reebok an exclusive license to sell team headwear. To discuss the case, we have Willamette University College of Law Professor Jeffrey Standen. 19 Feb 2010 18:22:02 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1783/pub_detail.asp Jeffrey Standen http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-02-19-10-Standen.mp3 SCOTUScast 02-19-2010 featuring Jeffrey Standen On January 13, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Needle v. National Football League. The question in this case is whether the NFL teams violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when they awarded Reebok an exclusive license to sell team headwear. To discuss the case, we have Willamette University College of Law Professor Jeffrey Standen. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 13:00 no On December 1, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa. The question in this case is whether a bankruptcy court order discharging a student loan debt without a finding of undue hardship issued after an adversary hearing is void. To discuss the case, we have the Wm. Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, Professor G. Marcus Cole. 26 Jan 2010 15:53:31 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1772/pub_detail.asp G. Marcus Cole http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-01-26-10-Cole.mp3 SCOTUScast 01-26-2010 featuring G. Marcus Cole On December 1, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa. The question in this case is whether a bankruptcy court order discharging a student loan debt without a finding of undue hardship issued after an adversary hearing is void. To discuss the case, we have the Wm. Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, Professor G. Marcus Cole. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 11:58 no On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court struck down as inconsistent with the First Amendment a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regarding independent expenditures by corporations that the FEC had said would forbid the airing of advertisements about a documentary about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United sought to air during the 2008 primary season. To discuss this case, we have the Director of the Election Law Program at the Ohio State University Moritz College, Professor Edward B. Foley, and the Josiah H. Blackmore II & Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, Professor Bradley A. Smith. To moderate the discussion, we have Supreme Court advocate and Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group Executive Committee member Erik S. Jaffe. 22 Jan 2010 06:50:45 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1770/pub_detail.asp Edward B. Foley, Erik S. Jaffe, Bradley A. Smith http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-01-22-10-Foley-Jaffe-Smith.mp3 SCOTUScast 01-22-10 featuring Edward B. Foley, Erik S. Jaffe, & Bradley A. Smith On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court struck down as inconsistent with the First Amendment a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regarding independent expenditures by corporations that the FEC had said would forbid the airing of advertisements about a documentary about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United sought to air during the 2008 primary season. To discuss this case, we have the Director of the Election Law Program at the Ohio State University Moritz College, Professor Edward B. Foley, and the Josiah H. Blackmore II & Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, Professor Bradley A. Smith. To moderate the discussion, we have Supreme Court advocate and Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group Executive Committee member Erik S. Jaffe. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 44:04 no On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Black v. United States & Weyhrauch v. United States. The issue in both cases is the scope of the "honest services" provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1346. Black argues that the provision does not apply to private individuals whose alleged "scheme to defraud" did not intend harm to the private party to whom "honest services" were owed. Weyrauch argues that a state official deprives the public of its right to "honest services" by failing to disclose material information only if the official violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law. To discuss the case, we have William Otis, former Special Counsel to President George H.W. Bush. 20 Jan 2010 21:27:39 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1769/pub_detail.asp William Otis http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-01-20-10-Otis.mp3 SCOTUScast 01-20-2009 Featuring William Otis On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Black v. United States & Weyhrauch v. United States. The issue in both cases is the scope of the "honest services" provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1346. Black argues that the provision does not apply to private individuals whose alleged "scheme to defraud" did not intend harm to the private party to whom "honest services" were owed. Weyrauch argues that a state official deprives the public of its right to "honest services" by failing to disclose material information only if the official violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law. To discuss the case, we have William Otis, former Special Counsel to President George H.W. Bush. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 14:06 no On December 2, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In this case the Florida Supreme Court rejected a takings challenge to Florida state legislation directing restoration of storm-eroded beaches along the ocean or lake shores but specifying that Florida owns a portion of the restored beaches. The Florida court premised its ruling on the proposition that the littoral landowners did not have a preexisting exclusive property right to contact with the water from their land. The question on certiorari is whether this was a misreading of Florida's property law that constitutes a "judicial taking" of the littoral owners' property rights in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. To discuss the case, we have the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Director of Litigation, James S. Burling. 15 Jan 2010 21:23:08 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1767/pub_detail.asp James S. Burling http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-01-15-10-Burling.mp3 SCOTUScast 01-15-2010 featuring James S. Burling On December 2, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In this case the Florida Supreme Court rejected a takings challenge to Florida state legislation directing restoration of storm-eroded beaches along the ocean or lake shores but specifying that Florida owns a portion of the restored beaches. The Florida court premised its ruling on the proposition that the littoral landowners did not have a preexisting exclusive property right to contact with the water from their land. The question on certiorari is whether this was a misreading of Florida's property law that constitutes a "judicial taking" of the littoral owners' property rights in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. To discuss the case, we have the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Director of Litigation, James S. Burling. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 20:54 no On November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merck v. Reynolds. The issue in this case is whether in a securities fraud case based on alleged material misstatements, an investor plaintiff must have evidence of scienter, or something short of that, before the statute of limitations starts to run. To discuss the case, we have Dechert LLP Partner Steven A. Engel. 14 Jan 2010 16:20:59 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1766/pub_detail.asp Steven A. Engel http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-01-12-10-Engel.mp3 SCOTUScast 01-12-2010 featuring Steven A. Engel On November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merck v. Reynolds. The issue in this case is whether in a securities fraud case based on alleged material misstatements, an investor plaintiff must have evidence of scienter, or something short of that, before the statute of limitations starts to run. To discuss the case, we have Dechert LLP Partner Steven A. Engel. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 14:48 no On October 14, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Perdue v. Kenny A. The issue in this case is whether 42 U.S.C. 1988, which authorizes courts to order losing parties to pay "reasonable" attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in certain civil rights cases, allows courts to enhance these fees solely due to quality of performance and results obtained as opposed to calculating them by multiplying the hours worked by the hourly rate ordinarily billed by attorneys of similar skill and experience. To discuss the case, we have Visiting Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Jack Park. 18 Dec 2009 17:08:08 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1761/pub_detail.asp Jack Park http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-12-17-2009-Park.mp3 SCOTUScast 12-18-2009 featuring Jack Park On October 14, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Perdue v. Kenny A. The issue in this case is whether 42 U.S.C. 1988, which authorizes courts to order losing parties to pay "reasonable" attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in certain civil rights cases, allows courts to enhance these fees solely due to quality of performance and results obtained as opposed to calculating them by multiplying the hours worked by the hourly rate ordinarily billed by attorneys of similar skill and experience. To discuss the case, we have Visiting Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Jack Park. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 16:48 no On October 13, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. The issues in this case are 1) whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that a guilty plea to an offense will result in his deportation, and 2) whether if an attorney affirmatively provides incorrect advice about deportation and the defendant pleads guilty, the attorney's incorrect advice amounts to constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and warrants a setting aside of the guilty plea. To discuss the case, we have United States Military Academy at West Point Department of Law Professor Margaret D. Stock. 4 Dec 2009 21:35:07 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1742/pub_detail.asp Margaret D. Stock http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-12-04-2009-Stock.mp3 SCOTUScast 12-04-09 featuring Margaret D. Stock On October 13, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. The issues in this case are 1) whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that a guilty plea to an offense will result in his deportation, and 2) whether if an attorney affirmatively provides incorrect advice about deportation and the defendant pleads guilty, the attorney's incorrect advice amounts to constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and warrants a setting aside of the guilty plea. To discuss the case, we have United States Military Academy at West Point Department of Law Professor Margaret D. Stock. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 30:49 no On November 4, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wood v. Allen. The issue in this case is how to reconcile various provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) regarding state court findings of fact challenged on habeas. To discuss the case, we have Todd F. Braunstein, an Assistant U.S. Attorney who is speaking in his personal capacity. 3 Dec 2009 20:13:52 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1748/pub_detail.asp Todd F. Braunstein http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-12-01-09-Braunstein.mp3 SCOTUScast 12-02-2009 featuring Todd F. Braunstein On November 4, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wood v. Allen. The issue in this case is how to reconcile various provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) regarding state court findings of fact challenged on habeas. To discuss the case, we have Todd F. Braunstein, an Assistant U.S. Attorney who is speaking in his personal capacity. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 09:07 no On November 2, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jones v. Harris Associates. The issue in this case is whether a shareholder's claim that a mutual fund's investment adviser charged an excessive fee is cognizable under Section 36(b) of the Investment Holding Company Act of 1940, absent a showing that the adviser misled the fund's directors who approved the fee. To discuss the case, we have the Director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, Professor Charles M. Elson. 30 Nov 2009 19:29:11 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1741/pub_detail.asp Charles M. Elson http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-11-30-2009-Elson.mp3 SCOTUScast 11-30-2009 featuring Charles M. Elson On November 2, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jones v. Harris Associates. The issue in this case is whether a shareholder's claim that a mutual fund's investment adviser charged an excessive fee is cognizable under Section 36(b) of the Investment Holding Company Act of 1940, absent a showing that the adviser misled the fund's directors who approved the fee. To discuss the case, we have the Director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, Professor Charles M. Elson. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 08:07 no On November 4, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee. The issue in this case is whether a prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil liability in a suit brought by a criminal defendant who alleges that the prosecutor violated a criminal defendant's substantive due process rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation and introducing it at trial. To discuss the case, we have O’Melveny & Myers LLP partner Kenneth L. Wainstein. 23 Nov 2009 21:11:10 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1736/pub_detail.asp Kenneth L. Wainstein http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-11-23-2009-Pottawattamie%20County_v_McGhee--Wainstein.mp3 SCOTUScast 11-23-2009 featuring Kenneth L. Wainstein On November 4, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee. The issue in this case is whether a prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil liability in a suit brought by a criminal defendant who alleges that the prosecutor violated a criminal defendant's substantive due process rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation and introducing it at trial. To discuss the case, we have O’Melveny & Myers LLP partner Kenneth L. Wainstein. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 17:19 no On November 9, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bilski v. Kappos. The issue in this case is whether a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular article into a different state or thing in order to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. To discuss the decision, we have University of Chicago School of Law and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein. 19 Nov 2009 18:54:13 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1727/pub_detail.asp Richard A. Epstein http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/2167_SCOTUScast-11-18-2009-Epstein(001).mp3 SCOTUScast 11-18-2009 featuring Richard Epstein On November 9, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bilski v. Kappos. The issue in this case is whether a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular article into a different state or thing in order to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. To discuss the decision, we have University of Chicago School of Law and New York University Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 11:59 no On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago on the question of whether the the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to the States and invalidates Chicago's ordinance prohibiting the possession of handguns in the home. To discuss the Privileges or Immunities question, we have Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Clark Neily and Loyola Law School Professor Kurt Lash. George Mason University School of Law Professor Nelson Lund will moderate the discussion. 10 Nov 2009 00:31:28 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1692/pub_detail.asp Nelson Lund http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/McDonald-v-Chicago-Lund-Neil-Lash.mp3 SCOTUScast 11-09-2009 featuring Kurt Lash, Nelson Lund, and Clark Neily On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago on the question of whether the the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to the States and invalidates Chicago's ordinance prohibiting the possession of handguns in the home. To discuss the Privileges or Immunities question, we have Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Clark Neily and Loyola Law School Professor Kurt Lash. George Mason University School of Law Professor Nelson Lund will moderate the discussion. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 43:56 no On October 6, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Stevens. The issue in this case is whether 18. U.S.C. 48, which criminalizes the creation for sale of depictions of animal cruelty, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. To discuss the case, we have Winston & Strawn litigation associate Jacob R. Loshin. 17 Oct 2009 00:02:10 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1667/pub_detail.asp Jacob R. Loshin http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-10-16-2009-Loshin.MP3.mp3 SCOTUScast 10-16-2009 featuring Jacob R. Loshin On October 6, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Stevens. The issue in this case is whether 18. U.S.C. 48, which criminalizes the creation for sale of depictions of animal cruelty, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. To discuss the case, we have Winston & Strawn litigation associate Jacob R. Loshin. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 10:24 no On October 7, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salazar v. Buono. The issues in this case are 1) whether Buono has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and 2) whether an Act of Congress that transfers ownership of government land (on which the religious symbol resides) to a private entity is a permissible remedy if an Establishment Clause violation exists. To discuss the case, we have Villanova University School of Law Professor Michael P. Moreland. 17 Oct 2009 00:00:30 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1666/pub_detail.asp Michael P. Moreland http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-10-16-2009-Moreland.MP3 SCOTUScast 10-16-09 featuring Michael P. Moreland On October 7, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salazar v. Buono. The issues in this case are 1) whether Buono has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and 2) whether an Act of Congress that transfers ownership of government land (on which the religious symbol resides) to a private entity is a permissible remedy if an Establishment Clause violation exists. To discuss the case, we have Villanova University School of Law Professor Michael P. Moreland. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 10:05 no October 5th marks the first day of the 2009 Supreme Court term. Thus far the Court's docket includes major cases concerning the First Amendment, the separation of powers, civil procedure, criminal law, intellectual property, mutual fund advisers' fees, takings, and more. Notable cases include Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which concerns whether a major provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with the principle of separation of powers; Graham v. Florida, which concerns the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile criminals; United States v. Stevens, which concerns the constitutionality of a federal law criminalizing certain videos and other depictions of animal cruelty; and Jones v. Harris, which asks whether a shareholder may challenge a mutual fund investment adviser's fee as excessive under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Court is also sure to add other significant cases when it meets for its opening conference on September 29. In addition to discussing these cases and others, the panelists will discuss Citizens United v. FEC, the case from last term involving the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold that was re-argued on September 9. Finally, the panelists will discuss the general direction of the Court, including the effect of the departure of Justice Souter and the addition of Justice Sotomayor. Featuring Hon. Walter E. Dellinger III of O’Melveny & Myers; Prof. Orin S. Kerr of George Washington University Law School; Ms. Cleta Mitchell of Foley & Lardner; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Gene C. Schaerr of Winston & Strawn; and Mr. Robert Barnes of The Washington Post as the moderator. 16 Oct 2009 23:05:50 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1659/pub_detail.asp Walter E. Dellinger III, Orin Kerr, Cleta Mitchell, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Gene C. Schaerr, Robert Barnes http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/2009SupremeCourtPreview-10-1-09.mp3 October 5th marks the first day of the 2009 Supreme Court term. Thus far the Court's docket includes major cases concerning the First Amendment, the separation of powers, civil procedure, criminal law, intellectual property, mutual fund advisers' fees, takings, and more. Notable cases include Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which concerns whether a major provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with the principle of separation of powers; Graham v. Florida, which concerns the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile criminals; United States v. Stevens, which concerns the constitutionality of a federal law criminalizing certain videos and other depictions of animal cruelty; and Jones v. Harris, which asks whether a shareholder may challenge a mutual fund investment adviser's fee as excessive under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Court is also sure to add other significant cases when it meets for its opening conference on September 29. In addition to discussing these cases and others, the panelists will discuss Citizens United v. FEC, the case from last term involving the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold that was re-argued on September 9. Finally, the panelists will discuss the general direction of the Court, including the effect of the departure of Justice Souter and the addition of Justice Sotomayor. Featuring Hon. Walter E. Dellinger III of O’Melveny & Myers; Prof. Orin S. Kerr of George Washington University Law School; Ms. Cleta Mitchell of Foley & Lardner; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Gene C. Schaerr of Winston & Strawn; and Mr. Robert Barnes of The Washington Post as the moderator. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 01:39:25 no On September 9th, 2009, the Supreme Court heard re-argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case concerns whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton that was intended to be shown on-demand to cable subscribers and in theaters. After hearing argument last term, the Court ordered a re-argument to focus on the constitutionality of restricting the independent spending of corporations during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. To discuss the case and the re-argument, we have the General Counsel of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, Mr. James Bopp, Jr. 10 Sep 2009 21:50:34 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1645/pub_detail.asp James Bopp, Jr. http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/2020_SCOTUScast-9-10-09-Bopp.mp3 SCOTUScast 9-10-09 featuring James Bopp, Jr. On September 9th, 2009, the Supreme Court heard re-argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case concerns whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton that was intended to be shown on-demand to cable subscribers and in theaters. After hearing argument last term, the Court ordered a re-argument to focus on the constitutionality of restricting the independent spending of corporations during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. To discuss the case and the re-argument, we have the General Counsel of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, Mr. James Bopp, Jr. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 11:31 no In the Bilski case, a patent application for a method of hedging risks in commodities trading was rejected by the examiner and review board. The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds that the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus, and only manipulates an abstract idea which cannot be used in the technological arts. Bilski appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which also rejected the application, but on the grounds that the applicants’ claims did not involve any patent-eligible transformation because there was no transformation of physical subject matter from one state to another, and non-physical financial risks do not qualify for patent-eligible subject matter. The Federal Court upheld the rejections of the Board, holding that the issue at hand is whether the method is patentable, and referred to previous Court decisions that determined that patent-eligible processes do not include abstract ideas. The Supreme Court will determine whether a "process" must be attached to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular object into a different state or object to be patentable and if the "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing business." Joshua Sarnoff and Michael Risch will discuss this case, moderated by Adam Mossoff. 13 Aug 2009 22:51:41 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1587/pub_detail.asp Michael Risch, Joshua Sarnoff, Adam Mossoff http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-8-13-09-BilskiDebate.mp3 SCOTUScast 8-13-09 featuring Michael Risch, Joshua Sarnoff, and Adam Mossoff In the Bilski case, a patent application for a method of hedging risks in commodities trading was rejected by the examiner and review board. The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds that the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus, and only manipulates an abstract idea which cannot be used in the technological arts. Bilski appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which also rejected the application, but on the grounds that the applicants’ claims did not involve any patent-eligible transformation because there was no transformation of physical subject matter from one state to another, and non-physical financial risks do not qualify for patent-eligible subject matter. The Federal Court upheld the rejections of the Board, holding that the issue at hand is whether the method is patentable, and referred to previous Court decisions that determined that patent-eligible processes do not include abstract ideas. The Supreme Court will determine whether a "process" must be attached to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular object into a different state or object to be patentable and if the "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing business." Joshua Sarnoff and Michael Risch will discuss this case, moderated by Adam Mossoff. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 31:25 no On Wednesday, May 20, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In this special cert grant episode of SCOTUScast, we take a look ahead to this important case that the Supreme Court will hear during its October 2009 Term. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 unconstitutionally violated the separation of powers or the appointments clause by granting the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board far-reaching executive power and having its members appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and removable only for cause. Northwestern University Law Professor and Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi discusses the case. 15 Jun 2009 21:58:40 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1484/pub_detail.asp Steven G. Calabresi http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-6-15-09-Calabresi.mp3 Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board On Wednesday, May 20, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In this special cert grant episode of SCOTUScast, we take a look ahead to this important case that the Supreme Court will hear during its October 2009 Term. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 unconstitutionally violated the separation of powers or the appointments clause by granting the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board far-reaching executive power and having its members appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and removable only for cause. Northwestern University Law Professor and Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi discusses the case. The Federalist Society convention, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges 22:39 no