Podcast appearances and mentions of aaron nielson

Live from the University of Michigan, Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by law professors Josh Chafetz, Aaron Nielson, Jennifer Mascott, and other special guests, to explain Humphrey's Executor and the executive power of removal. The Agenda: —Myers v. United States —Humphrey's Executor v. United States —Peekaboo —The “illimitable power of removal” —Was Madison right about “liquidation”? —Congressional accountability —Civil service reform —Justice Barrett Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 23: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Free Speech Coalition, et al.), Brian H. Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae), and Aaron Nielson, Solicitor General of Texas (on behalf of Ken Paxton). Background on the case, excerpted from the introduction of the Brief for Petitioners: Texas House Bill (H.B.) 1181 imposes requirements on commercial websites “more than one-third of which” are “sexual material harmful to minors”—a term that includes all sexually suggestive content, as might be found in romance novels or R-rated movies. The law requires a covered website to verify the age of every user, typically via government-issued identification. Entities conducting such verification may not “retain” users' “identifying information,” but H.B. 1181 does not prohibit transfer of that information or impose any other protection against disclosure.  And while Texas insists that forcing users to endure chilling online privacy and security risks is necessary to protect minors from harmful sexual content, H.B. 1181 exempts the search engines and social-media platforms that are principal gateways for minors' access to that very content.  Confirming Texas's real aims, H.B. 1181 also requires covered websites to post stigmatizing, unscientific “[w]arnings” that condemn their content as harmful to health. The district court preliminarily enjoined H.B. 1181, finding that the law is subject to strict scrutiny and likely to fail it under this Court's governing precedent.  In particular, the court explained that H.B. 1181's age verification requirement is materially identical to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U.S.C. § 231, which this Court in Ashcroft held was subject to strict scrutiny and likely unconstitutional.  The Fifth Circuit agreed that H.B. 1181 is materially identical to COPA, but a divided panel held that it was not bound by Ashcroft because that decision contains what the majority termed “startling omissions.” The majority concluded that the proper level of scrutiny is instead rational-basis review, as applied in Ginsberg.  To justify its departure from Ashcroft, the majority reasoned that this Court there applied strict scrutiny to COPA only because Attorney General Ashcroft, represented by Solicitor General Olson, erroneously accepted strict scrutiny rather than urging mere rational-basis review in defense of the statute. Question Presented: This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review—rather than strict scrutiny—to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Brief for petitioners Brief in opposition The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

On March 18, the Gray Center hosted the First Annual Gray Lecture on the Administrative State, an event that we hope to make a keynote of our calendar each year. This included a panel discussion, featuring Professors John Harrison, Aaron Nielson and Aditya Bamzai, along with Gray Center Co-Executive Director Adam White. They discussed the […]

On March 18, the Gray Center hosted the First Annual Gray Lecture on the Administrative State, an event that we hope to make a keynote of our calendar each year. This included a panel discussion, featuring Professors John Harrison, Aaron Nielson and Aditya Bamzai, along with Gray Center Co-Executive Director Adam White. They discussed the future of “agency independence” in the aftermath of Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), along with the broader trajectory of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on appointments and removal.  Each of the professors has also authored or co-authored a new Gray Center Working Paper. Panel Video link: https://vimeo.com/693653217

On March 18, the Gray Center hosted the First Annual Gray Lecture on the Administrative State, an event that we hope to make a keynote of our calendar each year. This included a panel discussion, featuring Professors John Harrison, Aaron Nielson and Aditya Bamzai, along with Gray Center Co-Executive Director Adam White. They discussed the future of “agency independence” in the aftermath of Seila... Source

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the Senate. If we were to redesign the APA for today's version of the administrative state, what would it be? To mark the 75th anniversary of the APA, on June 11, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference gathering many of the George Mason Law Review Symposium Issue authors together at the Historic Decatur House in DC for an afternoon of conversations on this and related questions. The second panel session, titled “The Life of the Law: What Has Happened Since 1946?” centered on papers by four Symposium Issue authors: The Honorable Ronald A. Cass, Aaron L. Nielson, Richard J. Pierce, Jr., and Stuart Shapiro. The panel session was moderated by Jennifer Mascott, Co-Executive Director of the Gray Center, who also gave opening remarks, along with Adam White. Links to the papers by this panel's authors are available below, and the videos from the entire event as well as all Symposium Issue papers are available at https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/events/the-75th-anniversary-of-the-apa-the-george-mason-law-reviews-3rd-annual-symposium-on-administrative-law/. This episode features Ronald Cass, Jennifer Mascott, Aaron Nielson, Richard Pierce, Stuart Shapiro, and Adam White. Papers discussed during this panel session include: “Rulemaking Then and Now: From Management to Lawmaking” by Ronald Cass, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/rulemaking-then-and-now-from-management-to-lawmaking/ “Three Wrong Turns in Agency Adjudication” by Aaron Nielson, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/three-wrong-turns-in-agency-adjudication/ “Agency Adjudication: It Is Time to Hit the Reset Button” by Richard Pierce, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/agency-adjudication-it-is-time-to-hit-the-reset-button/ “The Impossibility of Legislative Regulatory Reform and the Futility of Executive Regulatory Reform” by Stuart Shapiro, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/the-impossibility-of-legislative-regulatory-reform-and-the-futility-of-executive-regulatory-reform/

The NCD crew sit down with Aaron Nielson, former Sea of Thieves Community Manager and Game Developer at Rare. Website: www.neoncitydaily.comTwitter: @neoncitydaily1Facebook: www.facebook.com/neoncitydaily

Aaron Nielson is the owner of Aaron's Coffee House.

In addition to our regular podcasts, this is a little series which brings you the candidates for the 2020  Australian Institute of Health and Safety board elections.  We've given each candidate only 10 minutes to convince you they are worthy to serve members of the AIHS.  To get more info, including detailed profiles of all election candidates, visit aihs.org.au   Let me know what you think about these - also if you post a comment or a question on safetyontap.com, you get direct access to each candidate so they can respond to your comment or question.  

This week on the podcast: D.C. Circuit extravaganza featuring special guests Professor Aaron Nielson, wanted “Anti-Administrativist” and Sage of the C.A.D.C.; and Cate Stetson, Hogan Lovells’ legendary appellate litigator who is one of the D.C. Circuit’s most frequent (and successful litigators). We record the episode with a LIVE student audience at Georgetown Law Center (thanks to our hosts, the students of the Georgetown chapter of the Federalist Society). Hear Aaron and Cate discuss what makes the D.C. Circuit unique? What are the biggest admin law issues coming out of the court? And just who is Judge Posner’s “mystery” D.C. Circuit judge, anyway? Plus: a lightning round of trivia about the current judges. WARNING: this episode’s guests may be armed with anti-deference arguments. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Links to a few items we discuss on this episode: Aaron Nielson's JREG post on the Lucia v. SEC oral argument: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-en-banc-oral-argument-part-ii/ Law Prof Kent Barnett’s article on Administrative Law Judges (ALJs): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144217 Aaron Nielson’s JREG post on Judge Posner’s D.C. Circuit “Mystery Judge”: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-can-you-guess-the-mystery-judge/ IJ’s latest lawsuit, a free speech challenge to the FDA’s Orwellian “skim milk” labeling regulations: http://ij.org/case/fda-skim-milk/ Aaron Nielson’s JREG post on the D.C. Circuit’s quirky “asterisk rule”: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-by-aaron-nielson/

Special guest Clark Neily talks qualified immunity: Police shootings, detaining a witness to a police shooting, and denying a pre-trial detainee access to a judge for 96 days. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Pauly v. White: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-2035.pdf Lincoln v. Turner: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-10856-CV0.pdf Lincoln v. Barnes: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-10327-CV0.pdf Jauch v. Choctaw County: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-60690-CV0.pdf Aaron Nielson & Christopher Walker article: http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/66/1/nielson-walker.pdf Will Baude article: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2070&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

With commentary by Professor Daniel Hemel Professor Nielson is a law professor at Brigham Young University and teaches/writes in the areas of administrative law, civil procedure, federal courts, and antitrust. Before joining the faculty, Professor Nielson was a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. He also has served as a law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Professor Nielson received his J.D. from Harvard Law School. Following graduation, he was awarded a Harvard Law School Post-Graduate Research Fellowship. Professor Nielson also received an LL.M from the University of Cambridge, where he focused his studies on the institutions that regulate global competition and commerce. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in economics and political science. Daniel Hemel's research focuses on taxation, risk regulation, and innovation law. His current projects examine the effect of tax expenditures on inequality; the role of cost-benefit analysis in tax administration; and the use of tax incentives to encourage knowledge production. As an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, he teaches tax, administrative law, and torts. Daniel graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College and received an M.Phil with distinction from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar. He then earned his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. Prior to his appointment, he was a law clerk to Associate Justice Elena Kagan on the U.S. Supreme Court. He also clerked for Judge Michael Boudin on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and Judge Sri Srinivasan on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and served as visiting counsel at the Joint Committee on Taxation. Presented on April 26, 2017, by the Federalist Society.

With commentary by Professor Daniel Hemel Professor Nielson is a law professor at Brigham Young University and teaches/writes in the areas of administrative law, civil procedure, federal courts, and antitrust. Before joining the faculty, Professor Nielson was a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. He also has served as a law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Professor Nielson received his J.D. from Harvard Law School. Following graduation, he was awarded a Harvard Law School Post-Graduate Research Fellowship. Professor Nielson also received an LL.M from the University of Cambridge, where he focused his studies on the institutions that regulate global competition and commerce. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in economics and political science. Daniel Hemel's research focuses on taxation, risk regulation, and innovation law. His current projects examine the effect of tax expenditures on inequality; the role of cost-benefit analysis in tax administration; and the use of tax incentives to encourage knowledge production. As an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, he teaches tax, administrative law, and torts. Daniel graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College and received an M.Phil with distinction from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar. He then earned his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. Prior to his appointment, he was a law clerk to Associate Justice Elena Kagan on the U.S. Supreme Court. He also clerked for Judge Michael Boudin on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and Judge Sri Srinivasan on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and served as visiting counsel at the Joint Committee on Taxation. Presented on April 26, 2017, by the Federalist Society.

For over thirty years, the seminal Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. NRDC has provided the principles used to determine the extent to which a court reviewing agency action should defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own rules as well as fill in “blanks” in the text. For much of his career on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia (and the Court) deferred to this decision. However, late in his tenure, Justice Scalia had begun to reconsider Chevron deference. For the Chevron example, in his opinions in King v. Burwell andUtility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, Justice Scalia criticized agencies’ assertions of unprecedented power. This panel will explore how judicial deference to agency decision-making has evolved since and whether it is time to revisit the doctrine of “Chevron deference.” How might Justice Scalia have come down on US v. Texas, net neutrality, or the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan”? Might his views have continued to evolve if he had remained on the Court? And what is the future of Chevron deference with the Roberts Court? Is a new balance between courts and agencies needed? -- This panel took place on September 17, 2016, during the Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference in Austin, Texas. The theme for the conference was "The Separation of Powers in the Administrative State". -- Welcome by Hon. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General. Introduction by Mr. Prerak Shah, Senior Counsel to the Attorney General. Panel One: Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Prof. Ron Beal, Baylor University Law School; Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; and Prof. Aaron Nielson, Brigham Young University Law School. Moderator: Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Karen Lugo, Director, Center for Tenth Amendment Action, Texas Public Policy Foundation.

On June 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Simmons v. Himmelreich. This case arose out of lawsuits filed by federal prisoner Walter Himmelreich after he was assaulted by a fellow prisoner. Himmelreich’s initial lawsuit, filed against the United States, was ultimately dismissed pursuant to an exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for certain discretionary actions by prison officials. While that suit was still pending, however, Himmelreich filed a second suit: a constitutional tort action against individual Bureau of Prisons employees. When Himmelreich’s initial suit was dismissed, these employee defendants argued that his action against them was foreclosed by the FTCA’s “judgment bar” provision, under which a judgment in an FTCA suit forecloses any future suit against individual employees. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the employees. On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the judgment bar provision did not apply to Himmelreich’s suit. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit split on whether the judgment bar provision applies to suits that, like Himmelreich’s, are dismissed as falling within an “exception” to the FTCA. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that the FTCA’s judgment bar provision does not apply to claims dismissed because they fall within an FTCA "exception." -- To discuss the case, we have Aaron Nielson, who is Associate Professor of Law at Brigham Young University Law School.

On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Simmons v. Himmelreich. This case arises from a lawsuit filed by federal prisoner Walter Himmelreich as the result of an assault by a fellow prisoner. Although several of Himmelreich’s claims were dismissed in an initial round of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit allowed two to proceed on remand, of which one was a “Bivens” claim made against certain officials in their individual capacities for failing to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court ultimately dismissed the claim, concluding that the “judgment bar” of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) precluded Himmelreich from pursuing a Bivens action against the officials individually when his underlying FTCA claim against the government had failed. On a subsequent appeal the Sixth Circuit disagreed and again revived the Bivens claim, reasoning that the grounds on which the FTCA claim had failed--namely, an exception to liability--indicated a lack of subject matter jurisdiction that did not trigger the FTCA judgment bar. The federal officials sought certiorari. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether, in an FTCA action brought under Section 1346(b), a final judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the FTCA exceptions to liability, 28 U.S.C. § 2680, bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim. -- To discuss the case, we have Aaron Nielson, who is Associate Professor of Law at Brigham Young University Law School.