Podcast appearances and mentions of andrew grossman

The US Supreme Court brought a muted end last week to its biggest tax case in years, but the arguments that propelled the case are far from over, especially about what the court's ruling could mean for future attempts to enact a wealth tax. The court voted 7-2 to uphold the mandatory repatriation tax, a one-time tax on past foreign corporate profits. Washington state residents Charles and Kathleen Moore had challenged the constitutionality of the tax, arguing that it had forced them to pay $14,729 in taxes on the profits of an Indian company in which they'd invested even though the company's profits were never distributed to them. But the case's significance went far beyond the Moores. Many had feared that striking down the tax not only would lead to billions of dollars in refunds to giant multinational companies that were the tax's primary targets, but also would call into question a host of other taxes based on similar legal principles. The Supreme Court said the tax was constitutional, and stressed that its ruling was narrow, with any outside issues left for another time. But that left unanswered questions about what the ruling could mean for any future wealth tax. Many such proposals would tax wealthy people's “unrealized” gains on investments—profits that haven't actually been distributed or monetized—which was the same issue over which the Moores questioned the repatriation tax. And while the court's ruling was narrow and set aside the realization issue, at least four of the nine justices supported the idea that income should have to be realized before it could be taxed, a signal that any future wealth tax could have a hard time passing legal muster before the court. This edition of Talking Tax has two interviews with two very different perspectives on the Moore ruling. Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael Rapoport spoke first with Chye-Ching Huang, executive director of the Tax Law Center at New York University's law school, who wanted to see the tax upheld, and then with Andrew Grossman and Jeff Paravano, attorneys for BakerHostetler who represented the Moores and wanted to see the tax struck down. Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

When a New York regulatory agency tried to get groups doing business with the NRA to end those business relationships, it may have run afoul of the First Amendment. Cato's Walter Olson and Andrew Grossman comment on National Rifle Association v. Vullo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Diane Menashe is a good friend of mine. She's also one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the country, and the way she works a courtroom never ceases to amaze me.Andrew Grossman is equally as impressive in his niche as a divorce attorney. His track record and reputation in Columbus are unmatched, and if you ever need a divorce attorney you should call him first.This threesome was an absolute blast! We talked about Diane's latest Dateline appearance, divorce,  what keeps them up at night, and everything in between. This episode is a MUST LISTEN with two fantastic people!

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Moore v. Harper. The case concerned the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution and “the claim that the Clause vests state legislatures with authority to set rules governing federal elections free from restrictions imposed under state law,” 600 U.S. ___ (2023). In a 6-3 decision, the Court rejected the “independent state legislature” doctrine recognizing the North Carolina Supreme Court's authority to review the legislature's rules for federal elections. Chief Justice Roberts issued the opinion of the Court; Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion; Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Please join us as Andrew Grossman discusses the Court's opinion.

Sloan discusses the SCOTUS rulings with attorney Andrew Grossman, gets career advice from Julie Bauke, debates Issue 1 with Frank LaRose, and discusses if we should expand the streetcar with Cincinnati Vice Mayor Jan Michelle Lemon-Kearny.

Sloan discusses the SCOTUS rulings with attorney Andrew Grossman, gets career advice from Julie Bauke, debates Issue 1 with Frank LaRose, and discusses if we should expand the streetcar with Cincinnati Vice Mayor Jan Michelle Lemon-Kearny.

In his 27 years as a divorce lawyer, Andrew Grossman has learned a few things about human connection.In fact, knowing him personally for most of his life, I've come to learn a few things about him, too. Andrew and his brother are two of my very best friends; our families and greater social networks are very much intertwined – making this a unique twist on our usual interview format. Skating through most of school, he was set on his current path, strangely enough, by a tornado in Kansas – a chain of events that would send him abroad to Oxford and change his outlook on life forever. The core theme of our conversation, though, is Andrew's hyper-informed perspective on marriage, family dynamics, parenting, and how drastically each has changed over the decades.We get personal about our own upbringings, comment on the state of society, and Andrew reveals the question he's asked most often about his work: Why do most people get divorced? I'm excited to have him here for an in-depth exploration of that very question, and many more.To learn more, visit: thegravitypodcast.comResources:Read: The Love Prescription: Seven Days to More Intimacy, Connection, and JoyWebsite: grossmanlawoffices.comGravity is produced by Crate Media.

Fiction writer A. E Kulze reads from her story "The Ladybugs," followed by a conversation with podcast hosts Andrew Grossman and Kate Sadoff. Kulze talks about her writing process, the role of the unconscious in forming the whole, and the joy of a perfect editorial cut. She also speaks more broadly about gender and domesticity, the failures of contemporary feminism, and the Desert Mothers, who've been largely forgotten to history. "The Ladybugs" was published in NER 43.2 (summer 2022).

Hosts Andrew Grossman and Kate Sadoff present an excerpt from the play "Splits/kin," co-authored by Milia Ayache and Amina Hassan, followed by a conversation with the authors. They talk about their process of collaboration, the influence of fairy tales and founding myths, and the global love affair between fathers and their television sets. The excerpt from the play is performed by Leslie Sainz and Andrew Grossman. "Splits/kin" was originally published in NER 43.2 (summer 2022) as part of the international feature on Lebanese writers.

Have you considered adding agritourism activities to your farm or operation? Whether it be tractor rides, farm tours, farm to table dinners, or the many other possibilities to bring tourists to your farm, agritourism can be a great way to add a revenue stream.    In this episode of Cultivation Station we speak with Dawn Thilmany from CSU Extension, Andrew Grossman, the director of Destination Development to discuss the CRAFT program, grant opportunities, and other agritourism resources, and Lynn Gillespee from The Living Farm, who discusses her own personal experiences and insight to running an agritourism operation.  

Administrative law—including key administrative law principles, such as the “major questions” and “nondelegation” doctrines—deserves far greater public attention. You'll find out why on this episode, in which host Corbin Barthold is joined by Andrew Grossman, a partner at BakerHostetler and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Andrew is counsel for a party in West Virginia v. EPA, an important administrative law case before the Supreme Court this term. He and Corbin discuss major questions, nondelegation, the West Virginia litigation, the importance of the constitutional separation of powers, the future of the administrative state, and more. Catch the oral argument in West Virginia on February 28. Also, check out Corbin's recent paper on these issues: A Path Forward on Nondelegation.

Andrew Grossman joins The Great Battlefield podcast to talk about his career in politics, including being the National Platform Director for the Democratic Convention and founding his firm Grossman Solutions where he's helping progressives with strategy, campaign management and recruitment.

REP. DEVIN NUNES U.S. Representative for California's 22nd congressional district   Rep. Nunes joins Larry O'Connor to discuss the latest revelations behind the Obamagate scandal and the failure of California's environmental policies that have led, he says to the recent wild fires.  JAMES O'KEEFE Founder of Project Veritas    O'Keefe has a brand new expose on ballot harvesting activities in Rep. Ilhan Omar's district in Minneapolis.  ANDREW GROSSMAN A partner at the law firm Baker & Hostetler LLP   [HOS-STET-LER] An Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies While the mainstream media discuss Judge Amy Coney Barret's faith, her children, her adoptions and other superfluous issues, we discuss her actual record as a judge on the 7th circuit court of appeals. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away from cancer last Friday, is lying in repose at the Supreme Court at this hour. On Friday, Justice Ginsburg will lie in state at the Capitol. She will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery next Tuesday, the day after Yom Kippur. And on Saturday, President Trump will announce his nomination for her replacement on the court. It does appear now that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has enough votes among Republicans to move that nomination forward, over the objections of Democrats who say that, in accordance with public opinion polls and given the proximity of the election, the choice should be made by whoever wins in November... Yesterday, Tom spoke with Ronald Weich, the Dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law, who argued that the Senate should not move ahead with the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to the High Court, as voters will be deciding the fate of the executive and legislative branches of government in just six weeks. Andrew Grossman joins Tom today. He’s an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies. He practices appellate law at Baker Hostetler's law offices in Washington. He has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, and he has testified more than a dozen times before the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate. Mr. Grossman co-wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last Saturday defending swift Senate action to confirm a new High Court nominee. He joins us on Zoom.

Andrew Grossman is a writer and a lawyer, originally from Kentucky but now based, like many of my guests, in NYC. Andrew is also a part of the reason Detoxicity exists, as he is a co-creator of the Facebook group Detoxifying Masculinity NYC. This group, like this podcast, aims to amplify the conversation around being better men and ridding ourselves of the toxicity often imposed on us by social constructs and conditioning.Andrew and I have a typically wide-ranging discussion that covers subjective wokeness and premature work syndrome, the “Jewish” vs. “white” conundrum, and what makes one decide to become an attorney to begin with.

The battle lines are being drawn around the timing of a Senate vote to confirm a nominee for the Supreme Court to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away from cancer last Friday. The iconic jurist will lie in repose at the Supreme Court tomorrow and Thursday. On Friday, Justice Ginsburg will lie in state at the Capitol. She will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery next Tuesday, the day after Yom Kippur. And on Saturday, President Trump will announce his nomination for her replacement on the court. It does appear now that there is enough support among Republicans to move that nomination forward. Tomorrow on Midday, I’ll speak with Andrew Grossman, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He’ll argue that the Senate should move ahead with the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to the High Court and not wait until after the November 3rd general election. Today, we hear from a legal scholar who argues that the Senate should wait until after the election, which is just 42 days away. Ronald Weich is the Dean of the School of Law at the University of Baltimore. He’s held that post since 2012. Before that, he served as an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department during the Obama Administration. Dean Weich joins Tom on Zoom to discuss his view, which he articulated in a weekend OpEd piece in the Baltimore Sun, that the Ginsburg vacancy on the Court should be the next president's to fill.

A case awaiting acceptance by the Supreme Court challenges required fees paid by attorneys to State Bar of Wisconsin. Much of that money then goes to fund extensive lobbying. Trevor Burrus and Andrew Grossman comment.Related material:Cato Institute brief in Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Andrew Grossman, lead vocalist of D.C. folk-pop outfit The North Country, shares his love of They Might Be Giants and divulges his deepest thoughts on social media. To hear this complete episode, visit Mixcloud.

Host: Athos Bousvaros, MD, MPH Guest: Andrew B. Grossman, MD Recorded at the second annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress in Las Vegas, Dr. Athos Bousvaros and Dr. Andrew Grossman discuss IBD among pediatric patients and how optimizing various therapies is critically important to achieving disease remission.

Host: Athos Bousvaros, MD, MPH Guest: Andrew B. Grossman, MD Recorded at the second annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress in Las Vegas, Dr. Athos Bousvaros and Dr. Andrew Grossman discuss IBD among pediatric patients and how optimizing various therapies is critically important to achieving disease remission.

Host: Athos Bousvaros, MD, MPH Guest: Andrew B. Grossman, MD Recorded at the second annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress in Las Vegas, Dr. Athos Bousvaros and Dr. Andrew Grossman discuss IBD among pediatric patients and how optimizing various therapies is critically important to achieving disease remission.

A new case headed to the Supreme Court may challenge a great deal of deference courts currently afford federal agencies. Andrew Grossman comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

With more than 10 percent of Americans moving each year, how can states ensure that their voting lists are kept up to date and that ineligible persons are removed? In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Court held that states can look at failure to vote as evidence to identify people who may have moved, but that it can’t be the sole factor used to remove a voter from the rolls. By a 5-4 vote, the decision upheld an Ohio law that removes from the voter rolls voters who don’t vote in any election for two years, fail to respond to a return card mailed to their registered address, and then don’t vote in any election for another four years. That scheme, according to the advocacy groups that challenged it, violated a section of the National Voter Registration Act that provides that failure to vote “shall not result in the removal of the name of any person” from the rolls. But, as Justice Alito’s majority opinion explained, another section provides that states may mail a “return card” to registered voters and, if they don’t respond, remove them if they fail to vote in the next two federal elections. And nothing in the statute says that states can’t rely on failure to vote as a basis to send out return cards. What states can’t do, the Court concluded, is rely on nonvoting as the sole criterion for removing a voter from the rolls. The majority’s decision preserves the tools that states have used for years to remove ineligible persons from voter-registration rolls and may spur more states to adopt approaches like Ohio’s. It also has important things to say about the courts’ respect for the policy judgments made by Congress and the states.Featuring:Mr. Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Brett Kavanaugh is Donald Trump's pick to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Cato adjunct scholar Andrew Grossman comments on Kavanaugh's record on the DC Circuit. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

With more than 10 percent of Americans moving each year, how can states ensure that their voting lists are kept up to date and that ineligible persons are removed? In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Court held that states can look at failure to vote as evidence to identify people who may have moved, but that it can’t be the sole factor used to remove a voter from the rolls. By a 5-4 vote, the decision upheld an Ohio law that removes from the voter rolls voters who don’t vote in any election for two years, fail to respond to a return card mailed to their registered address, and then don’t vote in any election for another four years. That scheme, according to the advocacy groups that challenged it, violated a section of the National Voter Registration Act that provides that failure to vote “shall not result in the removal of the name of any person” from the rolls. But, as Justice Alito’s majority opinion explained, another section provides that states may mail a “return card” to registered voters and, if they don’t respond, remove them if they fail to vote in the next two federal elections. And nothing in the statute says that states can’t rely on failure to vote as a basis to send out return cards. What states can’t do, the Court concluded, is rely on nonvoting as the sole criterion for removing a voter from the rolls. The majority’s decision preserves the tools that states have used for years to remove ineligible persons from voter-registration rolls and may spur more states to adopt approaches like Ohio’s. It also has important things to say about the courts’ respect for the policy judgments made by Congress and the states.Featuring:Mr. Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Andrew Grossman is the front man of The North Country. The North Country just released the video for "Don't Quit Your Day Job." Andrew says he hates Instagram. I bet he already posted a photo of the show on his Instagram. See him June 28 at Jammin' Java opening for Ike Reilly.

Should pollution that crosses state and international borders be subject to nuisance regulation at the local level? Andrew Grossman comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Washington, DC's The North Country has changed a lot in its seven years of making music. One thing that has remained consistent is front-man Andrew Grossman's commitment to creating electric and innovative pop and folk music pushes artistic boundaries as much as it honors them.On our latest episode, we're sitting down with Grossman to talk about the past and future of the band, what it takes to stay dedicated to making art in the nation's capital, Sean Barna, their new Ardor EP, and much, much more.Show NotesIncidental music courtesy of Aquatic Gardener. Hear more/buy it HERE.Support us on Patreon! [link] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

From the beginning, it was clear that Merril Garbus (tUnE-yArDs) is a force of nature. Over the course of now four albums, she has reshaped the pop landscape into a much more meaningful, and blissfully weirder, place. i can feel you creep into my private life, her most straightforward work to date (and now a duo featuring longtime collaborator Nate Brenner) isn't just a record that challenges what it means to be tUnE-yArDs, but the privilege and power that pop music commands in the modern age.PLUS! As Washington DC's The North Country continues to evolve, Andrew Grossman and crew take some time to revisit their latest full length (In Defense Of Cosmic Altruism) plus some choice outtakes on their luxuriant Ardor EP. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On December 4th, the Supreme Court heared oral arguments in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran. The case involves a question of statutory interpretation, whether 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g), an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, permits victims of state-sponsored terrorism to collect on non-commercial goods. 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g) allows Americans to sue foreign governments that support terrorism by which they or their family is harmed, an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars such suits.In 1997, Hamas, a terrorist group aided by Iran, sent three suicide bombers into a Jerusalem shopping mall, killing 7 people and injuring 200. Eight American victims sued Iran and won a judgement for $423.5 million in damages. When Iran did not pay, the victims tried to seize Iranian artifacts housed at the University of Chicago. The question at hand is whether they should be permitted to under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g).Andrew Grossman will join us to describe the oral argument. Featuring:Andrew M. Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On December 4th, the Supreme Court heared oral arguments in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran. The case involves a question of statutory interpretation, whether 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g), an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, permits victims of state-sponsored terrorism to collect on non-commercial goods. 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g) allows Americans to sue foreign governments that support terrorism by which they or their family is harmed, an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars such suits.In 1997, Hamas, a terrorist group aided by Iran, sent three suicide bombers into a Jerusalem shopping mall, killing 7 people and injuring 200. Eight American victims sued Iran and won a judgement for $423.5 million in damages. When Iran did not pay, the victims tried to seize Iranian artifacts housed at the University of Chicago. The question at hand is whether they should be permitted to under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g).Andrew Grossman will join us to describe the oral argument. Featuring:Andrew M. Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Over the years, there’s been some debate over the length of the tax code, but according to Andrew Grossman, an attorney at Congress’ Joint Committee on taxation, the current tax code is approximately 2,600 pages long....Continue Reading...

On Saturday, March 11 the House passed the Fairness in Class Litigation Act by a vote of 220-201. The stated purpose of the Act is to “(1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and multidistrict litigation plaintiffs; (2) diminish abuses in class action and mass tort litigation; and (3) restore the intent of the framers…by ensuring Federal court consideration of interstate controversies of national importance consistent with diversity jurisdiction principles” (H.R.985, 2017). -- The Bill amends the federal judicial code’s standards for the certification of class action. For example, the bill requires that proposed class members to show that they suffered the same type and degree of injury. The bill also limits the amount and timing of attorney’s fees in a class action. Attorney’s cannot be paid more than the class members, and they must be paid after the class members receive payment. -- Andrew Grossman Partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute will join Professor Howard M. Erichson of Fordham to discuss the legislation as deliberations begin in the Senate Judiciary Committee. -- Featuring: Professor Howard M. Erichson, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law and Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Adjunct Scholar, the Cato Institute.

Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, has much to recommend him to libertarians, according to Cato adjunct scholar Andrew Grossman. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The post Executive Actions & Blockchain Technology with Andrew Grossman & Donatien Adou appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Climate change activists have for the past year been urging the Department of Justice and state attorneys general to investigate ExxonMobil, think tanks, and other corporations and organizations that have expressed skepticism or otherwise presented contrary views either on the science or the policy of climate change regulatory action. These calls include members of Congress petitioning the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether Exxon and its “brain trust” violated civil RICO, an ongoing Martin Act investigation launched last fall by the New York Attorney General, and more recently, subpoenas issued by the US Virgin Islands and civil investigative demands from the Massachusetts AG. A press conference on March 29, 2016 attended by former vice-president Al Gore, represented that these calls for investigations are supported by a coalition of 20 attorneys general. The next day a majority of state attorneys general, 29 in all, issued a press release that they would not be joining in that call for investigations or other regulatory action, citing respect for the rule of law and the First Amendment. Asserting that good science embraces disagreement and the chilling effect on research when the government decides what is “truth” and what is “fraud,” these majority states revealed a stark divide in our polity about the proper role of the executive branch – state and federal – in formulating, enforcing and financing climate change policy. -- At the March 29, 2016 press conference, former vice-President Gore asserted that “our democracy’s been hacked” and that these state and federal enforcement actions were necessary to remedy Congress’s and other legislative inactivity. In this Teleforum, Andrew Grossman – who has been involved in both defending targets of the subpoenas and in challenging the lawfulness of their issuance – discussed some of the legal and policy questions implicated by this division between the states, and the executive branches and Congress, such as: Should a corporation’s published research that expresses concerns about climate change be grounds for civil RICO or other regulatory action? Would such potential liability disincentive research? Should the government decide what is truth and what is not in the historically uncertain arena of science? Should those matters be decided in legislative hearings with the opportunity for the expression of multiple views on the science, policy, and proposed solutions? Should there have to be a substantiated allegation of unlawful conduct before such investigatory powers are wielded? Who has been defrauded? Is there harm in forcing corporations and think tanks to open up their records, research and communications – isn’t that a good way to determine whether there has been fraud on the energy markets? On the other hand, has Exxon sold oil or raised capital by claiming climate change is not affected by fossil fuels? Are consumers/investors uncritical consumers of industry information? What are the pros and cons of legislative action, inaction or accretional action versus sweeping state and federal executive enforcement actions? What regulatory authority or past practice provides a template for these investigations, and what are their practical and historical goals and outcomes? Do think tanks have a different status vis-a-vis the First Amendment than a for profit business selling fossil fuels, and if so what role, if any, does the source of their funding play? -- Featuring: Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute and Margaret A. (Peggy) Little, Partner, Little and Little, & Director, The Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center.

On April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Evenwel v. Abbott. As required by the Texas Constitution, the Texas legislature reapportioned its senate districts after the publication of the 2010 census, formally adopting an interim plan that had been put in place for the 2012 primaries. Plaintiffs, who are registered Texas voters, sued the Texas governor and secretary of state, asserting that the redistricting plan violated the one-person, one-vote principle of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, by failing to apportion districts to equalize both total population and voter population. A three-judge district court ruled in favor of the state officials. -- On appeal, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population when apportioning state legislative districts. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the three-judge district court. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that constitutional history, precedent, and longstanding practice demonstrate that a state may draw its legislative districts based on total population. The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Justice GInsburg’s opinion for the Court. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Thomas joined except as to Part III-B. -- To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is Partner at Baker & Hostetler, LLP.

The post State Budget Maven & Climate Show Trials with John Nixon & Andrew Grossman appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

On December 8, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott. As required by the Texas Constitution, the Texas legislature reapportioned its senate districts after the publication of the 2010 census, formally adopting an interim plan that had been put in place for the 2012 primaries. Plaintiffs, who are registered Texas voters, sued the Texas governor and secretary of state, asserting that the redistricting plan violated the one-person, one-vote principle of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, by failing to apportion districts to equalize both total population and voter population. A three-judge district court ruled in favor of the state officials. -- On appeal, the question before the Supreme Court is whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population when apportioning state legislative districts. -- To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is Associate at Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar at The Cato Institute.

The EPA's clean power plan is the subject of legal challenges, but those challenges may not ultimately matter. Andrew Grossman updates the status of the legal fight. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association deals with more than one important element of how unions get their money. Andrew Grossman discusses the Cato Institute's brief in the case. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The EPA's ability to compel states to do its bidding may not rely on having certain regulatory rules upheld in court. So says Andrew Grossman. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s podcast, Andrew Grossman and Michael Hernandez of DC’s The North Country stop by the basement the morning after a most triumphant show at Babe City to talk about their upcoming album There Is Nothing To Fear. A pastiche of early 2000’s indie rock (think Arcade Fire, Wilco, My Morning Jacket) mashed together with whip-smart observational lyrics and sublimely honest, observational, lyricism, Fear not only marks the arrival of a major musical force on the DC scene, but happens to be one of the best albums of 2015 to date.Whether you’re already a fan, or just getting hip to The North Country, this is one conversation you’re not gonna want to miss on Episode 112 of ChunkyGlasses: The Podcast! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Season 3 Episode 5 Alex Woodin and guest Andrew Grossman discuss the Phillies with call-in guest Woody from Mays Landing, NJ. …Continue reading →