Podcasts about administrative law judges

Send us a textCannabis Legalization News: The Farm Bill, Federal Policies, and Local DevelopmentsIn this episode of Cannabis Legalization News, Tom discusses various topics surrounding cannabis legislation and industry updates. The main focus is on the Farm Bill, which is expected to be seen before June, according to statements from GT Thompson, the U.S. House Ag Committee Chair. The episode also covers news from across the United States on cannabis legalization efforts, including issues in the House and Senate regarding budget cuts, definitions of hemp, and the impact on SNAP benefits. Tom shares updates from states like Virginia, Ohio, and Texas, discussing the political landscape and potential changes in cannabis laws. Additionally, there's a spotlight on a proposed locally-owned dispensary in Pekin, Illinois, and the potential economic benefits it could bring to the community. The episode also touches on the ramifications of the DOJ's stance on administrative law judges, a study on cannabis' effects on the brain, and various happenings in the cannabis world.00:00 Introduction and Weekly Updates00:31 Farm Bill Discussion02:31 World War 3 and Economic Concerns03:47 Cannabis Legalization and Policy Issues07:01 Trump's Drug Policy and Its Implications10:25 Administrative Law Judges and DEA15:21 Cannabis and Alcohol Consumption Trends28:19 North Carolina's Cannabis Law Controversy32:49 Ohio Traffic Stop and Marijuana Bust34:58 The Importance of a Certificate of Analysis (COA)35:19 Revenue from Legal Weed36:37 HempFest and HempStock36:54 Michigan's Marijuana Tax Dollars37:25 Regulatory Differences Across States37:40 Washington State's Fun Police40:04 Marijuana Research and Brain Studies41:39 Local Cannabis Legalization News44:32 The Future of Cannabis Dispensaries48:05 Hemp Beverages and the Farm Bill52:37 Ohio's Legalization Rollback59:23 Texas Cannabis Legislation01:07:47 Growing Cannabis: Challenges and Opportunities01:09:19 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsSupport the show

Administrative Law: Must members of the National Labor Relations Board, and its Administrative Law Judges, be removable by the president at will? - Argued: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 11:29:32 EDT

Axon and Jarkesy have renewed scrutiny of the constitutionality and fairness of FTC’s administrative litigation. For example, the President cannot remove Administrative Law Judges nor FTC Commissioners, and FTC Commissioners both vote to issue the complaint and decide its merits in proceedings. Parties before the DOJ-Antitrust Division, on the other hand, go directly before an Article III judge, and avoid administrative litigation altogether. This panel, featuring the former FTC Acting Chairman, Commission advisors, and administrative law experts, discussed these and other constitutional challenges to FTC’s administrative litigation. If the courts ultimately uphold constitutionality, is Congressional reform warranted? Should FTC’s administrative tribunal be abolished altogether? Or are internal process reforms sufficient to afford fairer process? Keith Klovers' article, "Three Options for Reforming Part 3 Administrative Litigation at the Federal Trade Commission," as referenced in the discussion.

It was a tough week for the National Labor Relations Board with the Senate failing to confirm Pres. Biden's nominations to the Board. This clears the decks for the incoming Trump Admnistration to remake the Board much quicker than anticipated. And just down the street, the agency lost a major court battle that could dramatically alter the roles - and tenure - of Administrative Law Judges. We'll discuss. And we are joined by Mike Whatley, the Vice President of State Affairs and Grassroots Advocacy at the National Restaurant Association to discuss some issues currently percolating, look back at 2024 and look ahead to 2025. We'll talk about those issues and wrap it up with the legislative scorecard.

SCOTUS limited the power of Administrative Law Judges, and in so doing dealt a blow to federal agencies that create, enforce, and manage disputes with their own regulations. Learn more on Business Law 101!   Thanks for joining me for this episode! I'm a Houston- based attorney, run an HR Consulting company called Claremont Management Group, and am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas. I've also written several non-fiction political commentary books: Bad Deal for America (2022) explores the Vegas-style corruption running rampant in Washington DC, while The Decline of America: 100 Years of Leadership Failures (2018) analyzes – and grades – the leadership qualities of the past 100 years of U.S. presidents. You can find my books on Amazon, and me on social media (Twitter @DSchein1, LinkedIn @DavidSchein, and Facebook, Instagram, & YouTube @AuthorDavidSchein). I'd love to hear from you!   As always, the opinions expressed in this podcast are mine and my guests' and not the opinions of my university, my company, or the businesses with which I am connected.   Photo credits: SVZUL; KurArt; AnnaStills; DCStudio; Silverman Media Services LLC; LUNAMARINA

Administrative Law: Does the Appointments Clause require Administrative Law Judges to be removable at will? - Argued: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:41:31 EDT

In a major ruling announced on June 28 by the Supreme Court of the United States, the power of the executive branch of the federal government in carrying out regulatory policies placed into effect by agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission has been diluted, giving more power to the courts.One day earlier, in another case, the Supreme Court ruled in a matter involving the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission that has put federal agencies such as the FCC on notice that their reliance on Administrative Law Judges could soon be coming to a conclusion.To help explain how these very important rulings could impact radio and television broadcast station owners, Frank Montero, the esteemed Partner at Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth in Arlington, Va., sits in on the InFOCUS Podcast, presented by dot.FM, to best explain to radio and television industry executives what could transpire for broadcasters in the wake of these two decisions.

The Lieb Cast examines the first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. They also take an in-depth look at recent Supreme Court decisions, including rulings that limited agencies receiving deference from the courts (Chevron Deference), state's rights to give homeless people criminal penalties, Executive Branch ability to influence social media content moderation without offending the First Amendment, limitation to administrative law judges, and limitations on charging Jan 6ers. Additionally, the Cast discusses Oklahoma's controversial plan to require Bible teachings in public schools - think the Establishment Clause - Love that Constitution!

They represent individuals seeking social security disability benefits before the Social Security Administration. They help people file for benefits, help them gather the medical evidence they need to prove their disability and they represent them before Administrative Law Judges in court to secure their benefits. There are no upfront fees, and they don't get paid until and unless we win the case. They have been in business for over 30 years and have represented tens of thousands of claimants. They are also a boutique operation--they don't have employees--it's just her husband and her, and so when a client calls, they speak with the owners directly--each client receives personalized service. Take a listen!

Following his retirement from the Navy in 1998, where he had spent many years on the bench as a judge, Ken Krantz served as an Administrative Law Judge for three different Federal agencies. While Ken acknowledges his information about when he became an ALJ is a little dated, he nonetheless brings awareness to the opportunities that are out there for people who would like to serve as one after leaving the JAG Corps. In addition to providing a link to a fact sheet on ALJ put out by the Office of Personal Management (https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/fact-sheet-administrative-law-judge-alj-positions-posted.pdf), Ken is open to connecting to interested lawyers via LinkedIn. His profile can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenneth-krantz-06586530/. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tom-welsh/support

The Labor Law Insider invites two experienced counsel, attorneys Terry Potter and Tom O'Day, to explore the implications of the National Labor Relations Board's decision in McLaren Macomb, issued in late February, as well as the even broader general counsel memorandum sharply curtailing employer rights to insist upon non-disclosure and non-disparagement in severance agreements. In part one of this podcast, host Tom Godar begins to explore the contours of these employee rights or employer restrictions. This change would affect all employees who would otherwise be eligible to participate in a bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act and bleed over as well to supervisors whose behaviors might be seen as having supported others in their protected and concerted activities. The new twist makes even presenting a non-disclosure or non-disparagement agreement to an employee—which is overbroad according to the new interpretation of the board and its GC—itself an unfair labor practice. According to General Counsel Abruzzo, the unfair labor practice would extend not only to those agreements which parties would now craft but would go back in time to agreements that include what are now considered overbroad non-disparagement or non-disclosure agreements, and that such agreements would be a continuing violation, with essentially no time limitation on when one could bring a charge based on overbroad language. Terry Potter suggests that while the instructions from the general counsel will find their way into enforcement actions brought by the board, the Administrative Law Judges before whom such cases are heard may curb the reach of the GC memorandum.It remains to be seen as to whether savings clauses that would carve out NLRB protected rights, or severability provisions, would be effective in defending against a ULP challenging the reach of the agreement. What is also missing from the GC memo is whether an agreement negotiated with counsel on both sides would have less scrutiny than one which was merely crammed down to employees who were in the process, for instance, of a reduction in force. Part two of the podcast continues to explore whether protected activity would include freedom from non-compete agreements, non-poaching agreements as suggested by the GC Memorandum.

In this episode Immigration Judges Megan Jackler and Jennifer Peyton give an overview of life as Administrative Law Judges for Immigration matters, including the process for becoming one. Hint: if interested, a new posting on USAJOBS is only days away. Judge Jackler serves in the Navy Reserves, while Judge Peyton was in private practice before going to the bench. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tom-welsh/support

The Florida Bar's Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism presents Never Contemplated, a candid discussion with female judges from across the state about gender bias, professionalism, and civility in the judicial system, hosted by Judge Hetal Desai. In this special episode, Judge Desai welcomes Administrative Law Judges Lisa Nelson, Suzanne Van Wyk, and Lynne Quimby-Pennock.This podcast has been approved by The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Department for 1 hour of Professionalism CLE credit. Course #6547.

The Florida Bar's Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism presents Never Contemplated, a candid discussion with female judges from across the state about gender bias, professionalism, and civility in the judicial system, hosted by Judge Hetal Desai. In this special episode, Judge Desai welcomes Administrative Law Judges Cathy Sellers and Francine Ffolkes.This podcast has been approved by The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Department for 1 hour of Professionalism CLE credit. Course #6546.

Sean C. Flaherty, Managing Partner, Keches Law Group Sean Flaherty joined Keches Law Group, P.C. in 2004 with a background in the constructionindustry. He is a former member of Iron Workers Local 7 Union. He represents injuredworkers in all phases of workers' compensation litigation including conciliations, conferences,and hearings before Administrative Law Judges at the Department of Industrial Accidents. Healso handles social security disability claims, as well as cases involving employmentdiscrimination, sexual harassment, and wrongful termination.Before joining Keches Law Group, Flaherty interned with the Norfolk County District Attorney'sOffice. He's also President of the Taunton Bar Association since 2011, and the past president ofthe Bristol Bar Association and has been on their board of directors since 2011. Flaherty is alsoCo-Chair of the Workers' Compensation Section of the Massachusetts Academy of TrialAttorneys since 2012; Vice President of Kids' Chance of Massachusetts, a guest professor at NewEngland School of Law, is on the board of directors at MassCOSH (Massachusetts Coalition forOccupational Safety and Health). Flaherty is also a member of the Workers' Injury and AdvocacyGroup.Flaherty was named in 2018 Boston Magazine's Super Lawyers edition as one of Massachusetts'“Super Lawyers” and prior as “Rising Star”, 7 years in-a-row. He is also the recipient ofMassachusetts Lawyers Weekly Excellence in The Law Award in 2011 and 2012.Flaherty received his bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Quinnipiac University. While atQuinnipiac University, he was named to the Phi Beta Kappa International Honor Society. Seanearned his law degree from New England School of Law and is admitted to practice law inMassachusetts.Professional & Bar Association Memberships● Co-Chair, Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, Workers' Compensation Section● President, Bristol County Bar Association● President, Taunton Bar Association● Vice President, Kids' Chance of Massachusetts● Board of Directors, MassCOSH, (Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety andHealth)● Member, Workers' Injury and Advocacy Group Awards● Super Lawyers, “Super Lawyer”; 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020● Super Lawyers, “Rising Star”; 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016● Americas Most Honored Professionals Top 5% Award, 2015● 10 Best 2016 American Institute of Legal Counsel for Client Satisfaction● WILIG 2014 Top 100 of the Nations Injured Worker Attorneys● Speaker 2016 Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education seminar on Workers'Compensation

Paul Bristow, 69, prostate cancer, Norton, with his wife, Kathy ● Paul has metastatic prostate cancer, which means his cancer has spread. He wasdiagnosed in August 2019. Throughout his cancer journey Paul has felt he's in greathands with his Dana-Farber care team.● The disease causes pain which has been challenging at times, especially since Paulloves to be active, even as a rider on the PMC.● This past year, his cancer was still progressing, despite previous treatments. That'swhen he learned there was a new treatment available that was just approved by theF-D-A, thanks to a clinical trial.● It's a radio-pharmaceutical, which means it is a nuclear medicine. It's a drug that isinjected and targets the radiation precisely to the tumor.● Paul was the first patient at Dana-Farber to undergo this cutting-edge treatment,going to the Chestnut Hill location to receive it.● Paul and his wife say when they learned about this new treatment option, they felthope and were thankful that Dana-Farber can offer it and appreciative of the scienceand research that made this treatment possible.● In his spare time, in addition to staying active, he loves to travel. Prostate cancer facts● Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men (after skin cancer).● The American Cancer Society's estimates for prostate cancer in the United States for2022 are about 268,490 new cases of prostate cancer.● About 1 man in 8 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime.● Prostate cancer begins when cells in the prostate gland start to grow out of control.The prostate is a gland found only in males.● Almost all prostate cancers are adenocarcinomas. These cancers develop from thegland cells (the cells that make the prostate fluid that is added to the semen).● Most prostate cancers are found early, through screening. Early prostate cancerusually causes no symptoms. Symptoms can include problems urinating, blood inurine or semen, pain in the hips, back, or chest, and weakness or numbness in thelegs or feed.● New research on gene changes linked to prostate cancer is helping scientists betterunderstand how prostate cancer develops. This could make it possible to designmedicines to target those changes. Sarah Sallan, RN, Nurse Practitioner, Jimmy Fund Clinic, Dana-Farber● She earned her Master's in Science at the University of Pennsylvania and started as aSolid Tumor Nurse Practitioner in the Jimmy Fund Clinic in December of 2019.● She primarily sees patients with osteosarcoma and germ cell tumors, but also othersolid tumor diseases. Sarah loves her team because of their depth of knowledge,patient care, and overall teamwork. Though the job can be difficult, the people makeit worth it.● Before working at the Jimmy Fund, Sarah worked as an inpatient registered nurse onthe Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplant unit at the Children's Hospital ofPhiladelphia (CHOP).● At the start of her career, Sarah worked for a non-profit in Cambridge for severalyears eventually realizing she wanted to interact more directly with people.Ultimately, she realized that nursing was her tue calling.● Sarah loves getting to know patients and their families and building relationshipswith them to care for their individual needs. ● Sarah is a granddaughter, niece, and daughter to a family of nurses and is very proudto follow their lead.● Already an avid city walker, Sarah is working on becoming a runner and has recentlylearned how to play pickleball. Sean C. Flaherty, Managing PartnerSean Flaherty joined Keches Law Group, P.C. in 2004 with a background in the constructionindustry. He is a former member of Iron Workers Local 7 Union. He represents injuredworkers in all phases of workers' compensation litigation including conciliations, conferences,and hearings before Administrative Law Judges at the Department of Industrial Accidents. Healso handles social security disability claims, as well as cases involving employmentdiscrimination, sexual harassment, and wrongful termination.Before joining Keches Law Group, Flaherty interned with the Norfolk County District Attorney'sOffice. He's also President of the Taunton Bar Association since 2011, and the past president ofthe Bristol Bar Association and has been on their board of directors since 2011. Flaherty is alsoCo-Chair of the Workers' Compensation Section of the Massachusetts Academy of TrialAttorneys since 2012; Vice President of Kids' Chance of Massachusetts, a guest professor at NewEngland School of Law, is on the board of directors at MassCOSH (Massachusetts Coalition forOccupational Safety and Health). Flaherty is also a member of the Workers' Injury and AdvocacyGroup.Flaherty was named in 2018 Boston Magazine's Super Lawyers edition as one of Massachusetts'“Super Lawyers” and prior as “Rising Star”, 7 years in-a-row. He is also the recipient ofMassachusetts Lawyers Weekly Excellence in The Law Award in 2011 and 2012.Flaherty received his bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Quinnipiac University. While atQuinnipiac University, he was named to the Phi Beta Kappa International Honor Society. Seanearned his law degree from New England School of Law and is admitted to practice law inMassachusetts.Professional & Bar Association Memberships● Co-Chair, Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, Workers' Compensation Section● President, Bristol County Bar Association● President, Taunton Bar Association● Vice President, Kids' Chance of Massachusetts● Board of Directors, MassCOSH, (Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety andHealth)● Member, Workers' Injury and Advocacy Group Awards● Super Lawyers, “Super Lawyer”; 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020● Super Lawyers, “Rising Star”; 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016● Americas Most Honored Professionals Top 5% Award, 2015● 10 Best 2016 American Institute of Legal Counsel for Client Satisfaction● WILIG 2014 Top 100 of the Nations Injured Worker Attorneys● Speaker 2016 Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education seminar on Workers'Compensation

Association of Administrative Law Judges Judicial Council 1 President Judge Som Ramrup joined the AWF Union Podcast and discussed the issue of double-breasted judges in the Social Security Administration, and why the judges unionized and a backlog of cases.   Immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov from the New York Federal Plaza Immigration Court joined the AWF Union Podcast and spoke about the process of union recertification and a backlog of just under 2 million cases.

Bombshell in SEC Lawsuit Mark reveals a bombshell in SEC v. Michelle Cochran. The agency has disclosed that its enforcement staff accessed documents in at least two adjudicatory matters currently in litigation in federal court, including Cochran. NCLA represents Michelle Cochran in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SEC's in-house Administrative Law Judges, who enjoy multiple layers of protection from removal by President Biden. SEC released a statement this week admitting that “administrative support personnel from Enforcement, who were responsible for maintaining Enforcement's case files, accessed [restricted] Adjudication memoranda via the Office of the Secretary's databases.” This self-described “control deficiency” is actually an outrageous breach of ethics—and possibly law—by SEC that illustrates why the Constitution forbids housing prosecutorial functions and adjudicatory functions in a single agency. NCLA's Amicus Brief in ATF Bump Stock Cert Petition  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has promulgated a Final Rule that classifies bump stocks as “machineguns” without Congress's delegation of authority to define or redefine that term. Gun Owners of America and several other organizations and individuals filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to settle widespread disagreement among the lower courts over (1) whether the definition of “machinegun” found in the relevant statute is clear and unambiguous, and if bump stocks meet that definition, and (2) whether courts should apply Chevron deference to an agency interpretation of federal law when the federal government declines to invoke it. Mark discusses NCLA's amicus in support of Gun Owners of America v. Garland. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Keeping tabs on the International Trade Commission is critical for any business engaging in trade across the US border. And in recent months, there has been a great deal of news coming out of the ITC, from compelling cases to turnover of Administrative Law Judges. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Attorney Libbie DiMarco shares her thoughts on the latest developments at the ITC. Here are a few of the highlights:01:07 - Background at Wolf Greenfield02:13 - ITC issues through the years04:15 - The ITC had to make significant adjustments because of Covid06:35 - The pros and cons of relying more on spoken testimony and less on written testimony09:02 - The ITC recently appointed its third Administrative Law Judge in three years. What's the impact of this kind of turnover?11:03 - An overview of the Kyocera case and the implications of the Federal Circuit's ruling against the ITC with a precedential decision for the Japanese electronics company.

In-person hearings are coming back to the Social Security Administration. SSA and the Association of Administrative Law Judges reached an agreement on that point. But video and phone hearings will still be an option this year. Judges over the past two years have held hundreds of thousands of tele-hearings since the start of the pandemic. For more, Federal News Network's Jory Heckman spoke with AALJ's president, Som Ramprup

A federal arbitrator recently stopped the Social Security Administration from moving ahead on a partial labor contract with the Association of Administrative Law Judges. The remaining parts of the proposed contract are tied up in federal court. Now, in what the union sees as a breakthrough, the arbitrator has ordered Social Security back to the bargaining table. Yet the administrative law judges say Social Security management refuses to bargain with them. For an update, union president Melissa McIntosh.

In this episode, Mark interviews NCLA Litigation Counsel, Caleb Kruckenberg about our lawsuit against the IRS for acquiring the unbridled power to demand and seize Americans' private financial information from third parties without any judicial process in defiance of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and statutory protections.   NCLA represents Mr. James Harper in his case against the agency before the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Mr. Harper's “crime”? Holding a bitcoin wallet.    The IRS somehow obtained Mr. Harper's records without a valid subpoena, court order, or judicial warrant based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects “the right of the people to be secure in their … papers … against unreasonable searches and seizures.”  In this case, the IRS violated the Fourth Amendment by issuing an informal demand for Mr. Harper's financial records from a third party even though it lacked any particularized suspicion that he had violated any law.   Read more about this case here: https://nclalegal.org/james-harper-v-charles-p-rettig-et-al/     Later in the show, Mark and Vec discuss our amicus brief in United States v. Arthrex. NCLA is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let Congress fix the Appointments Clause defect in administrative patent judges.   At issue in the consolidated set of cases is whether administrative patent judges (APJs) can be appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce or whether the Constitution requires the President to appoint these judges and the Senate to confirm them.   Read more about this case here: https://nclalegal.org/2020/12/ncla-asks-us-supreme-ct-to-let-congress-fix-appointments-clause-defect-in-admin-patent-judges/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new year might have dawned, but relations between management and employees at the Social Security Administration remain tense. The relatively small group, SSA's administrative law judges, recently expressed no-confidence in the agency's leadership. For an update, the Federal Drive turned to the president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, Melissa McIntosh.

They can totally work from home. Everyone's been telework-enabled for years. But even as the virus threat widened, the administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration were told they'd need to work in their offices one more week, ending today. The agency seemed reluctant to go ahead on telework. It seemed weird to this judge, who's also president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, Melissa McIntosh. She joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin to explain what's going on.

Stuck contract negotiations and now a proposed rule change for disability appeal processing have widened the wedge between the Social Security Administration and its administrative law judges. The president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, Melissa McIntosh, joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin for the latest developments.

Labor negotiations at the Social Security Administration have been a mixed bag over the last year. The bulk of unionized employees have a new agreement, but only after some tough ruling by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The agency's administrative law judges, who have their own union, say they are encouraged by the FLRA's findings. Association of Administrative Law Judges president Melissa McIntosh joined the show with the latest.

In today's Federal Newscast, there's been another setback in negotiations between Social Security Administration management and its cadre of administrative law judges.

After fighting with its American Federation of Government Employees for months and months, the Social Security Administration's administrative law judges have declared deadlock in their negotiations. Federal Drive with Tom Temin spoke earlier with the president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, Melissa McIntosh, about the outcome.

The administrative law judges at the Social Security Administration have asked the brand new commissioner, Andrew Saul, to suspend negotiations with their union on a new collective bargaining agreement. At issue is who reports to whom. The president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, Melissa McIntosh, joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin to sort it all out.

We live in a system where regulators make the rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before Administrative Law Judges. If the matter ever gets to court, courts generally defer to the agency on questions of law “and fact.” As a result, agencies know that their regulations are unlikely to face challenge and, if they are challenged, will likely be upheld. In this system, critics argue, the predictable result is more and more irrational regulations and enforcement actions. Arizona has first-of-its-kind legislation to “reverse” Chevron and to instruct courts to give no deference to agency decisions on questions of law. On a related note, Arizona also passed the Right to Earn a Living Act, creating a cause of action to challenge occupational licensing decisions under a heightened standard of review. Some contend that the result of this new law has been significant in that regulators are reviewing and improving rules, or repealing them outright, rather than face litigation. Could these measures serve as a model other states and the federal government in reducing the size and scope of, and otherwise improving the Administrative State?Prof. Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center, Fordham University School of LawProf. Chris Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law Prof. Miriam Seifter, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitModerator: Hon. Michael Scudder, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

We live in a system where regulators make the rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before Administrative Law Judges. If the matter ever gets to court, courts generally defer to the agency on questions of law “and fact.” As a result, agencies know that their regulations are unlikely to face challenge and, if they are challenged, will likely be upheld. In this system, critics argue, the predictable result is more and more irrational regulations and enforcement actions. Arizona has first-of-its-kind legislation to “reverse” Chevron and to instruct courts to give no deference to agency decisions on questions of law. On a related note, Arizona also passed the Right to Earn a Living Act, creating a cause of action to challenge occupational licensing decisions under a heightened standard of review. Some contend that the result of this new law has been significant in that regulators are reviewing and improving rules, or repealing them outright, rather than face litigation. Could these measures serve as a model other states and the federal government in reducing the size and scope of, and otherwise improving the Administrative State?Prof. Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center, Fordham University School of LawProf. Chris Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law Prof. Miriam Seifter, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitModerator: Hon. Michael Scudder, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Fifty years since passage of the Federal Magistrates Act, the Federal Bar Association continues to work on behalf of members of the federal judiciary and of administrative law judges. Recently it released a statement on the rule of law and confidence in the Department of Justice. Federal Bar Association President Maria Vathis spoke about the association's issues for the coming year on Federal Drive with Tom Temin.

On this episode of Court Radio, Dean Weitzman of MyPhillyLawyer speaks to Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, to talk about programs that impact social security and medicare.

The Trump administration seems to be leaving no stone unturned in its quest to reorganize the government. One new proposal is to change how administrative law judges are hired. They would no longer be chosen under Title 5 competitive hiring but instead become appointees, much like federal prosecutors. Marilyn Zahm, president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges and a judge at the Social Security Administration, joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin for her reaction.

Welcome back to Counting to 5, a podcast about the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, I review the Court’s decisions issued on June 21, 2018, in four argued cases, including Lucia v. SEC, a case about the constitutionality of the appointment of the SEC’s administrative law judges, and South Dakota v. Wayfair, a … Continue reading Episode 054: Livestream — Internet Sales Tax and Administrative Law Judges

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a case with important implications for administering government in an accountable manner. Federal agencies wield enormous power over the lives of Americans in many respects. Instead of bringing enforcement actions against individuals or businesses in federal court, agencies often opt to commence proceedings where in-house judges preside. These administrative law judges or “ALJs” make up what is sometimes called the “hidden judiciary.” They adjudicate claims, decide what evidence is admissible, and enforce penalties and compliance. Some believe ALJs are well-suited to handle these proceedings efficiently, but others believe ALJs suffer from a lack of independence because they work for the agency that initiated the proceedings. In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether they are unconstitutional. The Court will consider whether ALJs are “Officers of the United States” within the meaning of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Why is this a big deal? What does this mean for government accountability? And what effect might this have on thousands of enforcement actions? Please join us as an expert panel discusses this important case. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The D.C. Circuit heard a rare doubleheader of en banc arguments on major structural separation of powers questions on May 24. -- First up was Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. SEC, which presented the question whether Administrative Law Judges at the SEC are “Officers of the United States” who must be selected in compliance with the Appointments Clause. The SEC contends that its ALJs are employees, not officers, because the ALJs do not exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,” which the Supreme Court has described as the hallmark of officer status. Last August, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit agreed with the SEC, relying almost exclusively on an earlier (divided) D.C. Circuit precedent, Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000), which held the ALJs at the FDIC are not officers because they do not issue final agency decisions. Three months later, the Tenth Circuit issued a 2-1 decision finding that SEC ALJs are officers who must be selected pursuant to the Appointments Clause. The Tenth Circuit panel expressly disagreed with Lucia and Landry that authority to issue final agency decisions is a prerequisite for officer status. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated its panel decision and granted en banc review. The status of ALJs under the Appointments Clause has important implications not only for the SEC’s enforcement of the securities laws but also for the system of administrative agency adjudication as a whole. -- The second case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, presented the question whether an “independent” administrative agency may be led by a single person. In a 100-page opinion by Judge Kavanaugh (joined by Judge Randolph) drawing on historical practice and first principles of separation of powers, the panel concluded that the statutory provision vesting the CFPB’s broad enforcement authority in a single director removable by the President only “for cause” violated Article II of the Constitution. The panel emphasized the absence of any historical precedent for an independent agency with a single director—a structure that created, in the panel’s description, an administrative official with more power than anyone in the federal government other than the President. The panel explained that this concentration of authority in a single person unaccountable to the President except for cause posed a “threat to individual liberty.” The panel remedied the constitutional defect by severing the statute’s “for cause” removal provision, thus making the CFPB director removable by the President at will. Judge Henderson dissented in part, arguing that the panel could have resolved the case on the basis of PHH’s statutory rather than constitutional challenges. The D.C. Circuit granted en banc review on both the constitutional and statutory questions. The Justice Department (under the Trump Administration) filed an amicus brief in support of the challengers, while the CFPB continues to defend the constitutionality of its structure through its independent litigation authority. -- Featuring: Thaya Brook Knight, Associate Director of Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute and Christopher G. Michel, Associate, Bancroft PLLC.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently increased its use of administrative proceedings, before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), to seek civil penalties, as an alternative to proceeding in an Article III court. Other federal regulatory and enforcement agencies use ALJs for various purposes at various rates. Although no single set of rules governs all ALJs, they typically differ from Article III courts in important ways, bringing their use under recent criticism. As two examples, ALJs do not enjoy life tenure and they are sometimes employed by and answerable to the agency itself. Our panel will discuss the pros and cons of the use of ALJs at the SEC and other agencies. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Stephen J. Crimmins, Shareholder, Murphy & McGonigle PC; Prof. Todd E. Pettys, H. Blair and Joan V. White Chair in Civil Litigation, University of Iowa College of Law; and Prof. Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, International Trade Commission.