SCOTUScast

On November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Rahimi. The Court considered whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violated the Second Amendment on its faceJoin us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Professor Mark W. Smith, Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College

On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley. At issue was whether a debtor is liable for a debt incurred by her partner's fraud and if she can discharge that debt in bankruptcy, regardless of her own culpability; the Court held that she could not discharge that debt. Join us to hear Prof. Plank break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling.Featuring:Thomas Plank, Professor Emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Law

On April 25, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin. At issue is whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property.Join us to hear Prof. Aaron Simowitz break down the background of the case and oral argument.Featuring:Aaron Simowitz, Associate Professor of Law, Willamette University College of Law

On April 18, the Court heard oral argument in Groff v. Dejoy and is set to address two issues concerning the protections provided employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. The Court is considering whether to overrule the “more-than-de-minimis-cost” test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Also at issue is whether burdens on employees are sufficient to constitute “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business” for the employer under Title VII.Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. Although his sabbath-taking was not a problem at the beginning of his tenure with the USPS, following a 2013 agreement with Amazon, USPS began to provide service on Sundays and holidays. This meant that postal workers now had to work Sundays. Initially, Groff was able to avoid working Sundays by trading shifts with co-workers, but that eventually became untenable as co-workers were not willing or available to trade, resulting in Groff being scheduled for Sunday shifts he could not work due to his convictions. Following disciplinary action for missed shifts, and facing termination, Groff chose to resign. He sued USPS for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices as required by Title VII. The Third Circuit, following Hardison, ruled in favor of USPS, citing as sufficient to constitute the “undue hardship” test the burden placed on Groff's coworkers who had to take more Sunday shifts and lessened workplace morale. Join us to hear a breakdown of the oral argument! Featuring:Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

On May 11, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Percoco v. United States. Justice Scalia once commented “[t]hough it consists of only 28 words, the [honest services] statute has been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.” In this case, the Court is asked to decide if a private citizen who holds no elective office or government employment owes a fiduciary duty to the general public sufficient to be convicted of honest-services fraud if they have informal “influence” over government decisions. Join us to hear from Gary Lawkowski, who is counsel of record for an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and the Presidential Coalition in Percoco v. United States, and who will break down the decision's reasoning and implications. Featuring: Gary Lawkowski, Counsel at Dhillon Law Group

On March 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. The Court considered whether the admission of a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On March 27, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Hansen. At issue in Hansen is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), a federal criminal statute that prohibits encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial or financial benefit sometimes termed “the encouragement provision,” violates the First Amendment.Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts. Hansen follows on the heels of another case with similar questions. Back in 2020, in United States v. Sinening-Smith, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that attempted to strike down the encouragement provision on the grounds the decision attempted to address an issue that was outside of the issue before the court. Hansen now brings those same constitutional issues to the fore. Please join us to hear the oral argument broken down and analysed. Featuring:Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

In Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the Supreme Court is considering "Whether humorous use of another's trademark as one's own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act's traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another's mark as one's own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act."IP expert Adam Mathews joined us to break down the case and oral argument.Featuring:Adam Mathews, State Representative, Ohio, and Attorney, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service. At issue was how much authority the IRS has (balanced against privacy rights) to seek records from third-party recordkeepers when it thinks such documents would help it collect a delinquent taxpayer's payment.Join us to hear a discussion of the decision's reasoning and implications.Featuring:David Schizer, Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics and Dean Emeritus, Columbia Law School

On November 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted cert in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, a patent infringement case that involves the application of the statutory enablement requirement of Section 112 of the patent laws to what is referred to as a "genus claim" as it applies in the context of pharmaceutical applications. The two patents in dispute relate to antibody drugs that reduce low-density lipoprotein (“LDL”) cholesterol.The Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 27. Specifically at issue is "whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specifications teach those skilled in the art to 'make and use' the claimed invention, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art 'to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments' without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial 'time and effort.'"Robert Rando, an intellectual property attorney who filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to break down the arguments.Featuring:Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP

On April 14, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. At issue was whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders. Join us to hear Ronald Cass and Henry Su unpack the decision's reasoning and discuss its impacts going forward. Featuring: Ronald Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC Henry Su, trial lawyer specializing in antitrust (worked for the FTC from 2011-2017)

On February 28, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The issue at hand was a dispute over whether uncashed MoneyGrams qualify as “a money order, traveler's check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable,” pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2503, and therefore whether they should be escheated to the debtor's or creditor's state.Join us to hear Prof. Adam MacLeod unpack the decision's reasoning and discuss its jurisprudential impacts going forward.Featuring:Adam Macleod, Professor of Law, Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law

On April 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in New York v. New Jersey. The issue at hand is New Jersey's right to withdraw unilaterally from the 1953 Waterfront Commission Compact (with New York), in the face of opposition from New York.Tune in to hear Prof. Daniel Barnhizer, a contracts scholar and professor at Michigan State University College of Law, break down the background of the case, the reasoning behind the 9-0 vote, and the decision's implications.

On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wilkins v. United States. The issue at hand is the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and property law from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the vote and the decision's implications.

On April 24, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin. At issue is whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates tribal sovereign immunity. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

On March 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service. At issue is how much authority the IRS has (balanced against privacy rights) to seek records from third-party recordkeepers when it thinks such documents would help it collect a delinquent taxpayer's payment.Join us to hear from Prof. David Schizer as he breaks down the case, argument, and potential implications.

On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. At issue is a circuit split over the proper remedy for the government's failure to prove venue: acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, or allowing the government to re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue.Join us to hear from Prof. Brian Kalt as he breaks down the case and argument.

On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. At issue is district court jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal (of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration) in arbitration cases under the Federal Arbitration Act.Join us to hear from Dr. Tamar Meshel as she breaks down the case and argument.

On March 20, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolodated cases of Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Dep. of Interior v. Navajo Nation. At issue is whether the federal government has an affirmative duty to the Navajo Nation to assess and provide for the Nation's water needs from particular sources, given that such a duty was not expressly established in past treaties between the federal government and the Nation. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

On February 28, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases challenging the Biden Administration's student loans forgiveness program: Board of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska. In August 2022, the Biden Administration's Department of Education announced plans to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans for borrowers who qualified. In order to do this, the DOE relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the government to modify student loans, among other things, during a national emergency.Both cases challenge this action. Biden v. Nebraska involves a challenge to the Executive action from six states who contend they will suffer direct harm based on a loss of tax revenue. In Department of Education v. Brown, two individual borrowers, one of whom has loans that are fully intelligible for forgiveness under the program, and one of whose loans only qualify for part of the maximum relief possible, also challenge the legitimacy of the program. The Court is faced with two questions in both cases: first, do the challengers, whether they be the states or the individual borrowers, have standing to sue? The Biden administration contends neither of the respondents possess standing. Second, assuming the Court decides there is standing to sue, the Court will face the question “Does the plan exceed the statutory authority available to the Secretary of Education, and adopted in a procedurally proper manner?”We will break down and analyze how oral argument went in both cases in this program.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On February 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dubin v. United States. At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else's' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit's decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez's father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform's use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users' viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS' efforts on their platforms.The district court granted Google's motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is: does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?Join us as Erik Jaffe breaks down the oral argument.Featuring:Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

On January 17, the Court heard oral argument in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland. The case involves immigration law and whether a court of appeals can review an immigrant's petition that the Board of Immigration Appeals participated in impermissible fact finding because the immigrant did not exhaust this claim using a motion to reconsider.Join us to hear a breakdown of the case!Featuring:John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter, head of the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.Halkbank is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.Please join us to break down and analyze the oral argument!Featuring:Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to clarify when and under what circumstances federal labor law preempts state tort claims for strike-related misconduct. On January 10, it heard oral arguments in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174, a case involving the intentional destruction of an employer's property.The employer, Glacier Northwest, manufactures ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix concrete hardens quickly and must be poured on the same day it's mixed. In August 2017, a union representing Glacier's employees called a sudden strike. The union allegedly timed the strike so that concrete would be left to harden in Glacier's trucks. Predictably, the concrete was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages. But state courts rejected the suit. They held that the suit was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because (a) the union's conduct was arguably protected by federal law, and (b) the conduct fell outside an existing exception for intentional-tort claims because it involved no violence or “outrageous conduct.”The central issue for the Court is whether the NLRA preempts intentional tort claims except when they're accompanied by violence or outrageous conduct. The union argues that the state courts got it right: violence or outrageous conduct is necessary. Glacier, on the other hand, argues that violence or outrageous conduct has never been required. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has long recognized that intentional property destruction is unprotected and falls outside the NLRA's preemptive reach.Regardless of who wins that argument, the resulting decision will likely clarify the scope of NLRA preemption. And potentially, it will offer guidance on the bounds of acceptable strike-related conduct.Join Alex MacDonald to stay informed on one of the most important cases currently before the Supreme Court.Featuring: Alex MacDonald, Director, Future of Work and Labor Law, Instacart

On December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state's supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court's own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections. Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself. Join us to break down the oral argument for this case!Featuring:Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm's Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute

On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, concerning public accommodation laws, compelled speech, and religious liberty as they relate to a website designer who stated it would be against her faith to design wedding announcement websites for same-sex couples. Join us to hear from Prof. Dale Carpenter as he breaks down the background of the case and the oral argument.

On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument in MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, which concerns appellate jurisdiction under Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m). Join us to hear from Prof. Thomas Plank as he breaks down the background and oral argument of the case.

On November 30, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wilkins v. United States. The issue at hand is the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and property law from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the oral argument and offer his takeaways, opinions, and predictions about the case.

On November 29, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Texas. The issues at hand include whether states have standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's immigration guidelines and whether this DHS guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and immigration from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the oral argument and offer his takeaways, opinions, and predictions about the case.

On November 8, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. At issue is whether a state can require corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction in order to do business in the state, or whether such a requirement violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.Tune in to hear from Prof. Christopher R. Green, a leading scholar on the 14th Amendment and constitutional law from the University of Mississippi School of Law.

On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, to decide whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders. This panel will discuss key take-aways from the oral argument and implications for administrative litigation at the Federal Trade Commission, and perhaps for other agencies as well.Featuring:Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeRonald Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PCHenry Su, Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP[Moderator] Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected.Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. Tune in to hear a breakdown of the oral argument.

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina).In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.Tune in to hear our experts break down the oral argument.Featuring:Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton SchoolDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

The Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit between rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation regarding Warhol's works based on Goldsmith's photo of the musician Prince. The fair use doctrine excuses from liability certain unlicensed uses of copyrighted works. The question before the Court in Warhol v. Goldsmith is whether Warhol's creation of a series of paintings copied from the photo, and the licensure of those paintings to periodicals, constitutes a fair use. Underlying the case are core intellectual property questions about the nature and scope of the fair use doctrine.Following oral arguments on October 12, Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the respondent (Goldsmith), joined us to break down the case.Featuring:Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court will address the dormant commerce clause in the context of a California law regarding the housing of farm animals. Specifically, the Court will decide "whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause..."Oral arguments took place on October 11. The Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro joined us to analyze the arguments and examine the issues underlying the case.Featuring:Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

On October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan.Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state's population. With these new lines, only one of the state's seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.Featuring:David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc. Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Millions of dollars are at stake in a dispute over whether uncashed MoneyGrams qualify as “a money order, traveler's check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable,” pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2503, and therefore whether they should be escheated to the debtor's or creditor's state.Join us for a discussion with Prof. Donald J. Kochan on the background of the case, takeaways from the oral argument, and the potential impacts the statutory interpretation involved.Featuring:Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

One of the longest-standing environmental law challenges is how to define the scope of waters regulated under the Clean Water Act known as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). After decades of regulatory uncertainty, the Supreme Court has again taken up a case that may provide clarity. On October 3rd, the Court will hear oral argument in Sackett v. EPA, the first case of this new term and the second time the case will be reviewed by the high court. Perhaps this time the Court will definitively determine what is a WOTUS. Will the Court definitively determine what is a WOTUS?Join us for a discussion on this important case with Damien Schiff (arguing for petitioners), Tony Francois (represented petitioners in the Ninth Circuit), and William Snape (Director of the American University Washington College of Law's Program on Environment and Energy Law). The panel will be moderated by Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Matt Leopold, who served previously as EPA general counsel and assisted in drafting the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule defining WOTUS.Featuring: Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationDamien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. William Snape, Director of Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of LawModerator: Matt Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case.Featuring:Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul StevensCarrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence ThomasModerator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan's merits.This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA's use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.Featuring: David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPAJustin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.

On June 13 and 15, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Denezpi v. United States and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas respectively. Both cases dealt with issues of Native American law. In Denezpi, a 6-3 Court ruled that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, in a case where a man was prosecuted in both a federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses. In Ysleta, the Court ruled 5-4 that the state of Texas could not control gambling activities on the lands of the Ysleta del sur Pueblo Native tribe.Featuring:Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLPJennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general's motion to intervene on the commonwealth's behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, related to the rights of the unborn. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.Featuring: Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vacated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capital sentences. The Court held that the judge's conduct of voir dire conformed to its precedents and reversed the First Circuit's holding that the judge had violated a rule established by that circuit under its supervisor power. The Court held that courts of appeals have no power to circumvent or supplement legal standards established in Supreme Court precedents.The Court also held that the judge was within his authority to exclude from the penalty trial hearsay evidence of Tsarnaev's brother's involvement in an unrelated murder. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires admission of all mitigating evidence no matter how dubious or how weakly mitigating.Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.Featuring:Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation