Podcasts about Antonin Scalia Law School

Can the president unilaterally impose tariffs under his emergency powers? In this webinar, legal scholars Ilya Somin, a professor at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University who is co-counsel in the pending tariffs case VOS Selections v. Trump, and Walter Olson explore the constitutional and statutory limits of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and other statutes. They'll discuss President Trump's recent efforts to justify sweeping trade measures under IEEPA, examine the historical role of Congress in setting tariffs, and consider broader stakes for the separation of powers. Whether you're a lawyer, policymaker, or interested observer, this conversation will shed light on one of the most important trade and constitutional questions of our time. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An audio of Ilya Somin's Just Security article, which has become more topical by the day. The title: "What Just Happened: The Invasion Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications." Somin is a Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and author of Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press).

Russia’s war against Ukraine has been marked by deliberate attacks on civilians, healthcare workers, and critical infrastructure. From targeting rescue personnel with follow-up strikes to direct attacks on hospitals and maternity wards, Russia’s actions raise serious questions under the Law of Armed Conflict. Additionally, its ongoing kinetic and cyber attacks on energy infrastructure further challenge established legal norms.This Federalist Society webinar will examine how these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, focusing on specific incidents and responsible actors. Panelists will also explore potential legal remedies and the prospects for war crimes prosecutions.Mike Lewis served as a naval aviator before becoming a renowned law professor, respected by scholars and practitioners alike. A great friend of the Federalist Society, he spoke at numerous lawyer and student chapter events and was a dedicated member of the Executive Committee of the International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group honors his legacy with a webinar.Featuring: Prof. Michael A. Newton, Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

How California’s state and local governments act in the wake of the devastating wildfires will be a harbinger of whether America can deal with its housing issues. California’s housing crisis was dire before the Southern California wildfires were sparked. As Jim Burling has recounted in his new book, Nowhere to Live, half of the nation’s homeless population lives in California. And between 2020 and 2023, California’s homeless population increased by 5.8 percent.Some argue that this housing crisis has only been exacerbated by errant government policies like exclusionary zoning and restrictive permitting conditions because these stifle the production of affordable housing. Others contend, however, that these restrictions are necessary not only to promote the orderly development of California’s land, but also to help prevent and avoid destruction done by wildfires and other natural disasters.Now, after so much property has been razed to the ground, how are California’s state and local governments addressing the needs of displaced landowners? What effect will Gov. Newsom’s emergency orders suspending the California Coastal Act’s requirements have on rebuilding? Will the California Coastal Commission comply with the Governor’s directives and how will it respond to rebuilding efforts? What implications will California’s response to the fires have on housing going forward?Join a panel of expert scholars, Jennifer Hernandez, Ilya Somin, and Nolan Gray, who will address these questions and much more.Speakers:Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research, California YIMBY Jennifer Hernandez, Partner, Holland & KnightProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Stephen Davis, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

President Trump’s February 18 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” Executive Order directs independent regulatory agencies to submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President. This joint webinar, sponsored by the Administrative Law and the Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Groups, will discuss the real-world implications of this order for independent agencies, including the Federal Communications Committee and the Federal Trade Commission.Featuring:J. Howard Beales, III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington UniversityHon. Susan E. Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington UniversityThomas M. Johnson, Jr. Partner, Wiley Rein LLPProf. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative StateModerator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher--To register, click the link above.

In this episode I'm following up on a tip from a listener who suggested that I should speak with David Bernstein. David was on Michael Shermer's podcast discussing civil liberty, free speech, and constitutional law issues. In the current situation of highly polarized public debate it is critical that we listen to both sides of the argument and don't fall victim to bias. This is a job for The Rational View! David E. Bernstein holds a University Professor Chair at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is the author or co-author of seven books including, most recently, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America. Find my on Facebook, LInkedIn, and Instagram

Featuring:Prof. Sadie Blanchard, "Adjudicating ESG Reputation," Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Benjamin Chen, "What are Linguistic Canons for?," Associate Professor, University of Hong Kong Faculty of LawProf. Robert Leider, "The Individual Right to Bear Arms for Common Defense," Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Tyler Lindley, "Reconstructing Section 1983," Associate Professor, Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law SchoolMr. Luke Schumacher, “A Council of Grand Strategists: The Original Hope, Fear, and Intent of the U.S. Senate in Foreign Affairs,” J.D. Candidate, Stanford Law School and Ph.D Candidate, University of Virginia Department of PoliticsCommenter: Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolCommenter: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawCommenter: Prof. Robert Miller, F. Arnold Daum Chair in Corporate Finance and Law, University of Iowa College of LawCommenter: Prof. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawCommenter: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Christina Mulligan, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

As President Donald Trump embarks on a second term, U.S. policy toward Iran stands at a crossroads. The Islamic Republic appears weaker and more isolated than ever, with its proxies severely damaged and domestic unrest threatening the regime’s stability. Yet, Tehran remains dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and has deepened its ties with Russia and China. Should Trump revive the “maximum pressure” strategy, pursue a more comprehensive nuclear agreement, or back an Israeli strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear? This webinar will explore the strategic choices ahead and their implications for the future of U.S. policy in the Middle East.Featuring: Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign RelationsBrian Katulis, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Middle East InstituteModerator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Director, National Security Institute; Assistant Professor of Law & Director, National Security Law & Policy Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

On President Trump's first day in office, he issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” attempting to change the current understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment by declaring that the children of illegal immigrants or people on temporary visas born in the United States are not granted citizenship. While many Americans may agree that the unfortunate realities of “birth tourism” and “anchor babies” in the U.S. need to be curbed or stopped, Trump's executive order has been criticized as unconstitutional and the wrong way to approach the issue. How are presidents of both parties subverting Congress in their pursuit of legislative goals? And how did President Obama's action on DACA and President Biden's declaration on the Equal Rights Amendment help create precedent for Trump's actions today? Adam White is the Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on the Supreme Court and the administrative state. Concurrently, he codirects the Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State. Before joining AEI, he was a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.Read the transcript here. Subscribe to our Substack here.

What makes some countries more innovative than others? What role do intellectual property rights play in building national power? Does Elon Musk really give competitors free access to Tesla's patents? To find out, ChinaTalk interviewed Adam Mossoff, professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. We discuss… How the patent system has shaped American society since independence, The extent to which patent policy caused the great divergence between the West and China, Whether Elon's misunderstanding of patents will become the dominant attitude of the second Trump administration, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other threats to the U.S. innovation ecosystem, How to reconcile China's IP theft with its robust domestic patent law, What the U.S. can do to facilitate innovation while competing with China in emerging technology. Outro Songs from the American Revolution: Liberty Song (Arthur F. Schrader rendition), and the Tory retort, Come Shake Your Dull Noodles (Arthur F. Schrader rendition) Thanks to the Innovation Alliance for sponsoring this episode. The Innovation Alliance is a coalition of research and development-based technology companies representing innovators, patent owners, and stakeholders who believe in the critical importance of maintaining a strong patent system that supports innovative enterprises of all sizes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last month, the last American troops left Niger, following withdrawal of U.S. troops in Chad last spring and from Somalia in 2021. Talks are underway for revived U.S. presence in Chad, as happened in Somalia in 2022, but there seems to be a larger trend toward disengagement. Does this foretell enhanced Chinese influence? A greater role for Russian intrigues? Or a larger role for terrorist networks? Join us for a discussion of the geostrategic stakes.Featuring: Cameron Hudson, Senior Fellow, Africa Program, CSISProf. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of LawDr. Michael Rubin, Senior Fellow, AEIModerator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

What makes some countries more innovative than others? What role do intellectual property rights play in building national power? Does Elon Musk really give competitors free access to Tesla's patents? To find out, ChinaTalk interviewed Adam Mossoff, professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. We discuss… How the patent system has shaped American society since independence, The extent to which patent policy caused the great divergence between the West and China, Whether Elon's misunderstanding of patents will become the dominant attitude of the second Trump administration, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other threats to the U.S. innovation ecosystem, How to reconcile China's IP theft with its robust domestic patent law, What the U.S. can do to facilitate innovation while competing with China in emerging technology. Outro Songs from the American Revolution: Liberty Song (Arthur F. Schrader rendition), and the Tory retort, Come Shake Your Dull Noodles (Arthur F. Schrader rendition) Thanks to the Innovation Alliance for sponsoring this episode. The Innovation Alliance is a coalition of research and development-based technology companies representing innovators, patent owners, and stakeholders who believe in the critical importance of maintaining a strong patent system that supports innovative enterprises of all sizes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Immigration is a spotlight issue, especially heading into the next administration. Some say the United States is under attack—that the entrance of millions of immigrants, some of whom intend to and do cause harm to Americans, constitutes an “invasion” or "predatory incursion" of the sort mentioned in Article I of the Constitution and the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Others contend, however, that allowing the term “invasion” or "predatory incursion" to apply to illegal immigration is both wrong and dangerous, and would allow for the possibility of states engaging in war or mounting hostility with neighboring countries. Is the US under invasion or predatory incursion by illegal immigrants? Can illegal immigration be an instrument to diminish the sovereignty of a nation? Join us in discussing these important questions and more.Featuring:Hon. Ken Cuccinelli, Former Acting Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland SecurityProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Joseph Humire, Executive Director, Center for a Secure Free Society--To register, click the link above.--For reference:Policy Brief: How States Can Secure the BorderAttorney General Opinion No. I22-001(R21-015) Immigration is Not InvasionCourts Might Not Stop Trump's Illicit Plans for Mass Deportations

With the upcoming shift in presidential administrations, there is a potential for significant changes within federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission. This webinar will speculate and discuss exactly what sorts of changes may be in store for the SEC agenda. Our two speakers will address questions surrounding topics like the agency’s enforcement approach, the future of cryptocurrency, climate regulation, exemptive relief post-Chevron, and the timeline according to which these changes may happen. Join us as we consider what the next administration’s SEC agenda could look like.Featuring:C. Wallace DeWitt, Securities LawyerModerator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University--To register, click the link above.

The future of the national bank system is increasingly uncertain as federal regulators have incorporated DEI and ESG into bank supervision, creating tensions with some states. Several states have responded by attempting to ban such practices, potentially creating conflicting legal duties for banks. Meanwhile, other states are challenging interest rate exportation and other aspects of state preemption, which arguably undermines the value of national charters and hampers the ability of banks and fintechs to scale nationwide. The Supreme Court's recent overruling of the Chevron doctrine adds another layer of uncertainty as federal regulators will receive reduced deference. Do these conflicts signal the end of national bank charters, and are we headed toward a red-state/blue-state banking system? This panel will explore these questions.Featuring:Mr. John Court, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & COO, Bank Policy InstituteMr. Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers’ ResearchProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The importance of judicial selection and confirmation is now a point of emphasis for all presidential administrations. In 2025 and going forward, what principles and considerations will govern judicial selection (and confirmation) in a new administration, with a new Senate majority. These and other important Article III issues will be considered by our panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel, Office of the Republican Minority LeaderMr. David Lat, Founder, Above the LawProf. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawModerator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

In September, the Department of Justice announced that it would withdraw its 1995 bank merger guidelines and apply its 2023 merger guidelines for all industries, a move that some have interpreted as signaling stricter review of bank mergers. At the same time, Congress is considering the “Credit Card Competition Act,” which purports to promote competition in the credit card network space. Join us for a discussion of these topics and their implications for consumers, competition, and the economy as well as Capital One’s proposed acquisition of Discover.Featuring:Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversitySen. Patrick Toomey, Former United States Senator (PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on BankingDr. Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy, Progressive Policy InstituteModerator: Jelena McWilliams, Managing Partner and Head of the Financial Institutions Group, Cravath, Swaine, & Moore Washington, D.C. office, Former Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)--To register, click the link above.

Join Anchoring Truths Podcast host Garrett Snedeker and journalist Conn Carroll for an exciting discussion about Carroll's new book Sex and the Citizen and the importance of marriage. In Sex and the Citizen, Conn Carroll shows how the assault on marriage conducted by cultural and political elites is undermining the very foundations of our democracy. Carroll's book is a powerful and urgent exploration of one of the most overlooked forces shaping the political landscape today: the rapid decline of marriage. Once the cornerstone of American life, marriage has seen a dramatic fall from grace. In 1960, four out of five households were led by married couples; today, that number has plummeted to less than half, with more people choosing cohabitation over commitment. The American family, as we once knew it, is unraveling. Sex and the Citizen offers a bold vision for restoring the stability and prosperity that marriage once provided. By learning from history, we can rebuild a society where love and commitment are the keys to human flourishing. Conn Carroll is the commentary editor for the Washington Examiner. He served as a communications director in the U.S. Senate for seven years before returning to journalism. He is a graduate of the Antonin Scalia Law School and lives in northern Virginia with his wife and three children. Order Sex and the Citizen here, and follow Conn Carroll on his Twitter page.

In Nowhere to Live: The Hidden Story of America’s Housing Crisis, author James Burling describes the interesting history of America's housing market. With stories going back to the Civil War, the early twentieth century, and the “urban renewal” movement of the 1950s, Nowhere to Live argues that a series of governmental mistakes helped to create a current housing crisis. Burling also proposes a solution: "not by government fiat, but through the restoration of private property rights." Join the author and moderator Eric Claeys as they discuss these issues and the book itself. Featuring:James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University--To register, click the link above.Click here to read James Burling's blog post.

In Berkeley Talks episode 209, renowned legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, and Nadine Strossen, professor emerita of the New York School of Law and national president of the ACLU from 1991 to 2008, discuss free speech challenges facing universities today. They covered topics including hate speech, First Amendment rights, the Heckler's Veto, institutional neutrality and what steps universities can take to avoid free speech controversies. The conversation, which took place on Sept. 11, was held in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, in which thousands of students protested successfully for their right to free political speech at UC Berkeley. Instead of having a moderator, the speakers were given a list of questions they each posed to each other, and took turns answering them. At one illuminating moment, Chemerinsky asked Strossen what steps she might take to reduce the harmful effects of polarized political speech on campus. “I think that punishment is not an effective way to change somebody's attitudes,” Strossen answered, “which is what we are concerned about, especially in an educational environment. Treating somebody like a criminal or even shaming, shunning and ostracizing them is not likely to open their hearts and minds. So I think it is as ineffective as a strategy for dealing with discrimination as it is unjustified and consistent with First Amendment principles.“But there are a lot of things that universities can and should do — and I know from reading about your campus, that you are doing … It's gotten justified nationwide attention.”Strossen went on to emphasize the importance of education, not only in free speech principles, but in other civic principles, as well, like the history of discrimination and anti-Semitism. Beyond education, Strossen said, “universities have to show support for members of the community who are the targets of hateful speech by raising their own voices, but also by providing psychological and other counseling and material kinds of support.”The event was sponsored by HxA Berkeley and Voices for Liberty, of George Mason's Antonin Scalia Law School. It was co-sponsored by Berkeley Law's Public Law and Policy program, the Berkeley Liberty Initiative and the Jack Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research.Read the transcript and listen to the episode on UC Berkeley News (news.berkeley.edu/podcasts).Music by Blue Dot Sessions.Screenshot of HxA Berkeley video. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the past seven months, the Biden administration has decided to levy sanctions on 11 “settlers” and an equal number of non-governmental organizations whom they view as “obstacles to peace."JNS senior contributing editor Caroline Glick is joined by legal expert Eugene Kontorovich, law professor and director of the Center for the Middle East and International Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School of George Mason University, about this unprecedented abuse of power against the Jewish state and what it could mean for the U.S.-Israel relationship going forward.Glick and Kontorovich also discuss international efforts by the United Nations, International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice to delegitimize Israel and what can be done to combat it.Subscribe Now to @JNS_TVStay informed about Israel and the Jewish world!Latest news: Get in-depth analysis at https://bit.ly/jewish_news_serviceSubscribe for more: Never miss a story - sign up for our newsletter: https://bit.ly/subscribe_to_JNSSupport our work: Your donation helps JNS fight for accurate headlines: https://bit.ly/Support_JNS

Congress's impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic's founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.Featuring:Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of LawProf. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Mike Ferguson in the Morning 08-05-24 (7:05am) Carl Szabo, Vice President and General Counsel for NetChoice and professor of internet law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, talks about the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and why it isn't protecting kids. It's actually an ID system for the internet and a children's cybersecurity disaster in the making. These laws mandate the largest collection of sensitive personal information that we've ever seen. Story here: https://netchoice.org/kosa-is-a-childrens-cybersecurity-disaster-in-the-making/ (https://netchoice.org/) (https://netchoice.org/team/carl-szabo/) (@CarlSzabo)  (@NetChoice)   We discuss Trump's comments regarding the affect of millions of illegal aliens on the black community, black jobs, and minorities in general.    Chris talks about going to see the latest entry in the R-rated Deadpool franchise, "Deadpool and Wolverine," over the weekend. Gabe tries to soften the blow, but it was still cringeworthy for Chris. Here's a review: https://www.pluggedin.com/movie-reviews/deadpool-and-wolverine-2024/   We discuss the financial upheaval in markets worldwide, the situation in the Middle East and international tensions, and the Democrat Party moving towards its convention in Chicago in a couple of weeks.    NewsTalkSTL website: https://newstalkstl.com/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsTalkSTL Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewstalkSTL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalkSTL Livestream 24/7: http://bit.ly/newstalkstlstreamSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Ferguson in the Morning 08-05-24 Carl Szabo, Vice President and General Counsel for NetChoice and professor of internet law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, talks about the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and why it isn't protecting kids. It's actually an ID system for the internet and a children's cybersecurity disaster in the making. These laws mandate the largest collection of sensitive personal information that we've ever seen. Story here: https://netchoice.org/kosa-is-a-childrens-cybersecurity-disaster-in-the-making/ (https://netchoice.org/) (https://netchoice.org/team/carl-szabo/) (@CarlSzabo)  (@NetChoice)   NewsTalkSTL website: https://newstalkstl.com/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsTalkSTL Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewstalkSTL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalkSTL Livestream 24/7: http://bit.ly/newstalkstlstreamSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Garland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the (then standing) Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s authority.The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024.Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence.Featuring:Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent InstituteProf. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco(Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

About the Lecture: 800 years have passed since the death of Master Wincenty (ca. 1150–1223), called Kadłubek, the first Polish jurist known to us. In his outstanding literary work, the Chronicle of the Poles he told us about Poland forever. The success of Wincenty's political narrative was made possible by the fact that his Chronicle of the Poles was a history textbook until the 19th century, rewritten and interpreted by historians. The cultural code written there was thus introduced into the bloodstream of Poles. However, his work was also a rhetoric textbook at the Krakow Academy since the 15th century. Why? Wincenty told us about Poland using legal categories and this left its mark on our identity and mentality. Freedom and law, justice and mercy, solidarity and loyalty play in the Polish soul to this day. Wincenty is the first to apply the concept of a republic (res publica) to the Polish state. He treated the need to renew the spirit and introduce reforms seriously, but he knew that not everything that came from the West was Christian, and the rational customs of the ancestors should be respected. Two wings: faith and reason are the basis of his actions. He had an open mind, but also a practical sense and knew the Polish soul and its flaws well. To understand Poland and its political and cultural context even today, you have to understand Master Wincenty. About the Speakers: Dr. Grzegorz Blicharz is the Director of the Centre for Law Religious Freedom and Assistant Professor at the Department of Roman Law at the Faculty of Law and Administration of Jagiellonian University in Kraków. His work focuses on Roman law in comparative perspective, on comparative freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and especially on the impact of religious freedom on the development of private law and legal doctrine. He has held visiting appointments at the Institute of European and Comparative Law at the University of Oxford (2020) and at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University (2021). Professor Franciszek Longchamps de Bérier is a professor law and the Head of the Department of Roman Law at the Faculty of Law and Administration of Jagiellonian University in Kraków. He also teaches at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw. He has an LL.M. from Georgetown University. He is a Catholic priest and an expert on bioethics for the Polish Episcopal Conference as well as a member of the COMECE Legal Affairs Commission. For the past 20 years, he has also lectured and conducted research on U.S. freedom of speech and religion.

Ilya Somin is a law prof and all-around intellectual. He is of a libertarian bent. He teaches at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He began life in the Soviet Union. He was but six when his family immigrated to America. He read Robert Nozick, and Tolkien, and others. He went to […]

Ilya Somin is a law prof and all-around intellectual. He is of a libertarian bent. He teaches at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He began life in the Soviet Union. He was but six when his family immigrated to America. He read Robert Nozick, and Tolkien, and others. He went to Amherst, Harvard, and Yale. He is a Boston sports fan. With Jay, he talks about life, the law, and the American experiment. A formidable mind, a formidable teacher. 

Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute and assistant professor of law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, knows better than anyone the growing threats to national security during these rapidly changing times. In this fast-paced episode of Access to Excellence, Jaffer and George Mason President Gregory Washington discuss the U.S.'s position on the global stage, the power of the American Dream, and what we as citizens can do to start solving some of the country's stickiest problems. 

Congress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.Featuring:Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of LawProf. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In this episode of the Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, Prof. Eugene Volokh, from UCLA Law School, and Prof. David Bernstein, from the Antonin Scalia Law School, discuss the features, implications, and possibilities of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.

Over the past two years, a series of regional conflicts has resulted in diplomatic tensions and increased conflict. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has raised concerns about the future of Europe's diplomatic landscape. Additionally, renewed conflict in the Middle East, particularly following the October 7th terror attack, has led to questions about the future of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the threat posed by Iran, and the stability of relations between the West and the Arab world. Furthermore, China's persistent aggression towards Taiwan has heightened concerns about the potential for conflict in the Pacific region.This panel will examine how the US can effectively prioritize its engagement in these regions. Panelists will offer perspectives on whether greater attention should be given to Asia, Europe, or the Middle East, and how to address the specific challenges in each region.Featuring: Michael Allen, Managing Director, Beacon Global Strategies LLCMark Dubowitz, Chief Executive Officer, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Prof. Julian Ku, Interim Dean, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law & Faculty Director of International Programs, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra UniversityModerator: Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Tune in today as Sam Stone is accompanied by guest cohost, Seth Leibsohn. They are joined by Ohio State Representative Josh Williams, a driving force behind legislation to strengthen penalties for firearm misuse in violent crimes, prioritizing community safety while safeguarding the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Later, catch up with Dan McLaughlin, a senior writer at National Review Online, and Conn Carroll, commentary editor for the Washington Examiner, as they delve into the intricacies of the Trump Trial, the guilty verdict, and its implications for the country moving forward. While the Karen Read Trial takes a break this week, Kiley's Corner returns with two intriguing new cases currently unfolding. And don't miss the Sunshine Moment, where we end the show on a positive note.Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds-Show Sponsors:Invest YrefyYrefy offers a secure, collateralized portfolio with a strong, fixed rate of return - up to a 10.25%. There is no attack on your principal if you ever need your money back. You can let your investment compound daily, or take your income whenever you choose. Make sure you tell them Sam and Chuck sent you! Learn more at investyrefy.com4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and moreUse code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after. Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.vote-About our guests:Ohio State Representative Josh Williams, represents Ohio's 41st district. State Representative Josh Williams is an incredible example of the power of persistence, hope, and determination. He went from a homeless high school dropout to an attorney, but there were a lot of challenges and obstacles along the way. After dropping out of high school, he went to work to support his young son. He was hurt on the job after falling 30 feet and was disabled for six years because of a serious back injury. Josh credited a change in his mindset as motivation to overcome his injury. He dedicated to stop looking at himself as a victim of his circumstances. Josh says his mindset went from "Why Me?" to "Why Not Me?"After getting his GED, Josh started college at the age of 30. By the time he was 35, he was graduating from law school. Josh is a shining example of hard work and determination paying off. Josh's journey from high school drop out to attorney at law has shaped his view of society and has inspired him to overcome any challenge he faces. After graduating from the University of Toledo College of Law with his juris doctorate (J.D.) Josh decided to give back and help shape our youth by teaching at Adrian College. He currently teaches constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure in the undergraduate criminal justice programs.Enjoying a career as a successful attorney and professor, Josh still felt a pull to do more for his local community in Lucas County. With a unique perspective on the problems facing Toledo, Josh decided to run for the Ohio House of Representatives to make the voice of his community heard in the capital. As a State Representative, Josh is pursuing reform in all the areas that affect Lucas County residents most: workforce development, education and criminal justice.-Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.Follow him on X @baseballcrank. -Conn Carroll is the commentary editor for the Washington Examiner. He served as a communications director in the U.S. Senate for seven years before returning to journalism. He is a graduate of the Antonin Scalia Law School and lives in northern Virginia with his wife and three children. You can follow him on X @conncarroll. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Two Think Minimum, Caroline Cecot, an associate professor of law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, talks about her recent article "The Meaning of ‘Silence.'" The discussion focuses on the potential consequences of narrowing the applicability of the Chevron doctrine and consequences on the major questions doctrine. She discusses the broader implications of overruling or limiting Chevron deference and the role of cost-benefit analysis in agency decision-making and the effect of the composition and views of the Supreme Court on administrative law issues.

Join host Sam Stone and guest host Sean Noble on this week's episode of Breaking Battlegrounds as they welcome Congressman John Curtis of Utah's 3rd District to dissect the pressing issues gripping Washington. Delving into his staunch support for Donald Trump and addressing his voting record, the discussion offers insights into politics, from the Biden administration's aggressive rule-making on public land management to the intricacies of foreign aid and military procurement. Later, Conn Carroll of The Washington Examiner joins the fray to unravel media bias, scrutinizing NPR's new CEO and delving into Ukraine funding while exploring the potential movement to vacate the speaker's position. Stay tuned for Kiley's Corner, where she provides updates on the Bryan Kohberger Idaho 4 case, recent arrests in the murders of the missing Kansas mothers, and a mysterious Florida case involving the murder of Katherine Altagracia Guerrero De Aguasvivas, which began with a carjacking caught on tape. And, the Sunshine Moment is back, leaving you on a positive note, reminding us that amidst the chaos, there's still good in the world. Don't miss this in-depth coverage of the nation's latest developments.Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds-About out guestsCongressman John R. Curtis proudly represents Utah's 3rd Congressional District where he is known for his reputation as someone who gets things done. Since being elected to Congress in 2017, John has passed 15 pieces of legislation into law, ranging in diverse topics such as better managing public lands, combatting human trafficking, reducing burdensome regulations on small businesses, and more. He has been ranked by the nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking as the 9th most effective Republican member of Congress. John serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee including as Vice-Chair of the Energy, Climate and Grid Security Subcommittee and a member of the Communications & Technology Subcommittee. On the Natural Resources Committee, he serves as Vice Chair of the Federal Lands Subcommittee and member of the Energy & Mineral Resources Subcommittee. -Conn Carroll is the commentary editor for the Washington Examiner. He served as a communications director in the U.S. Senate for seven years before returning to journalism. He is a graduate of the Antonin Scalia Law School and lives in northern Virginia with his wife and three children. You can follow him on X @conncarroll. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Hour 3: David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University where he is executive director of the Liberty & Law Center there at the Antonin Scalia Law School, joins Mark Reardon to discuss his new piece in Reason Magazine headlined, "Is Opposition to Critical Race Theory Correlated with Ignorance of Critical Race Theory? A New Study says Yes -- but it has some serious problems." Then, Chris Clem, retired Chief Border Patrol Agent, joins Mark Reardon to share on migrant crime, the southern border crisis, and how it is affecting everyone in the country. Later, Mark brings you the Audio Cut of the Day.

David Bernstein, law professor at George Mason University where he is executive director of the Liberty & Law Center there at the Antonin Scalia Law School, joins Mark Reardon to discuss his new piece in Reason Magazine headlined, "Is Opposition to Critical Race Theory Correlated with Ignorance of Critical Race Theory? A New Study says Yes -- but it has some serious problems."

Garland v. Cargill concerns whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and Administrative Law, the case raises questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the ATF’s authority. Bump stocks are devices attached to semi-automatic firearms to increase the rate of fire. In 2019, the ATF issued a rule that bumpstocks themselves were machineguns, and thus subject to the rules of Title 26, which marked a significant shift in federal policy. Michael Cargill, the owner of Central Texas Gun Works, challenged this reclassification, arguing it was an unconstitutional overreach by the ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Fifth Circuit of Appeals ruled in his favor. A significant circuit split on this issue now exists, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits holding that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits have held that they are. The oral argument in Cargill is set to be heard before the Supreme Court on February 28, 2024.Join us the next day as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

NSI hosted an event to foster discussion around policy positions and recommendations found in its latest publication, Addressing the National Security Threat of Chinese Technology Innovation. This panel of experts expanded upon the policy solutions found in NSI's latest paper and explain how the U.S. and our allies can lead in free-market innovation and what Congress can do to support and promote U.S. technological leadership. The panel discussion featured national security policy and industry experts and will take place in-person on Capitol Hill on November 2nd, 2023.Panelists:Carl Holshouser, Senior Vice President & Corporate Secretary, TechNetRobert Strayer, Executive Vice President of Policy Information Technology Industry CouncilLiza Tobin, Senior Director for Economy Special Competitive Studies ProjectJamil N. Jaffer, Founder & Executive Director, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: 22nd Amendment Ratified On this day in legal history, February 27, 1951, marked a pivotal moment in the governance of the United States with the ratification of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment introduced a significant change to the presidential tenure by limiting the officeholder to two elected terms, effectively preventing any individual from being elected as President more than twice. This legal milestone was a response to the unprecedented four-term presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, aiming to ensure a rotation in leadership and prevent the concentration of power. The amendment was intended to underscore the nation's commitment to democratic principles and the importance of checks and balances within its constitutional framework.The journey to ratify the 22nd Amendment was rooted in a broader political and historical context. Following President Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to a fourth term in 1944, there was growing concern among legislators and the public about the potential for excessive concentration of power in the executive branch. This concern led to bipartisan support for an amendment to limit presidential terms. The process began in earnest when the Republican-controlled 80th Congress introduced the amendment in 1947. After vigorous debates that reflected the country's divided sentiments on executive power and term limits, the amendment was passed by Congress on March 24, 1947. It was then sent to the states for ratification, a process that required the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. By February 27, 1951, the necessary threshold was reached, making the 22nd Amendment a part of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case not about the Second Amendment directly, but regarding the federal government's authority to interpret laws, particularly focusing on whether bump stock attachments fall under the definition of machine guns as per a statute banning such weapons. This legal dispute is significant as it could potentially narrow the government's interpretative powers and affect the legality of bump stocks, devices implicated in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting—the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. The Trump administration had deemed bump stocks illegal, arguing they convert semi-automatic rifles into machine guns by using recoil energy to enable continuous firing. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this interpretation, claiming the definition of a machine gun in the law is ambiguous when applied to bump stocks, thereby challenging the ATF's rule. This case underscores a broader debate on the power of federal agencies to unilaterally interpret laws, highlighted by recent challenges to the Chevron deference doctrine. The dispute was initiated by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of Michael Cargill, a gun store owner who opposed the bump stock ban. The legal and regulatory history of bump stocks, including their exclusion from the machine gun category by the ATF for nearly a decade, adds complexity to the government's position. The outcome could have broader implications for gun control and the regulation of emerging firearms technology, as well as for federal agency authority more generally.Bump Stock Ban Brings Agency Power Dispute to Supreme CourtProsecutors in Manhattan have requested a gag order against Donald Trump in relation to his New York trial concerning hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, to prevent him from publicly discussing witnesses or revealing jurors' identities. This request comes from the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, citing Trump's history of attacking legal proceeding participants. Trump, who denies any wrongdoing in the case accusing him of falsifying business records to conceal a payment to Daniels, has argued that such a gag order would infringe on his free speech rights. The trial is one of four criminal cases against him, as he campaigns for a return to the presidency. The proposed gag order would limit Trump's comments on witnesses, prosecutors (excluding Bragg), and court staff. Additionally, prosecutors seek to protect jurors' identities by referring to them only by number and have requested that Trump could lose access to their names if he threatens their safety. This case, set against the backdrop of Trump's previous fines for violating gag orders and ongoing legal challenges, highlights the tension between legal proceedings and political campaigning.Prosecutors seek Trump gag order in NY hush money criminal case | ReutersSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has hired Crystal Clanton, a law clerk previously accused of racist behavior, stirring controversy due to her alleged past conduct. Clanton, who graduated from George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, has been scrutinized for sending a text message that expressed hatred towards Black people while working for the conservative group Turning Point USA. Despite these accusations, Clanton has clerked for two federal judges appointed by Republican presidents and has worked closely with Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist. The hiring raised concerns among Democratic lawmakers, prompting an investigation into the judges who previously employed Clanton, although the misconduct allegations were ultimately dismissed. Justice Thomas has defended Clanton, stating that bigotry is contrary to her character. Clanton's appointment as a clerk for Justice Thomas follows her roles with influential figures in the conservative legal community, highlighting ongoing debates over the influence of personal beliefs and past actions on judicial appointments and the integrity of the legal system.Supreme Court's Thomas hires clerk accused of racist conduct | ReutersThe U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking legal action to prevent Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons for $24.6 billion, citing antitrust concerns. This lawsuit is supported by eight states and the District of Columbia, aiming to block the merger due to fears of increased grocery prices, reduced product quality, and limited worker compensation. Kroger and Albertsons counter that the deal is competitive and benefits consumers by better positioning them against larger retailers. The case joins other legal challenges, including actions by Washington and Colorado state attorneys general, who argue the merger would harm competition and lead to higher prices and fewer jobs. Additionally, a consumer lawsuit in California against the merger has struggled to demonstrate harm, with the court dismissing it twice, though the case remains open for amendment.FTC case over Kroger-Albertsons deal adds to earlier antitrust woes | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson. The Court will consider whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.Legal questions involved in the case include whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing" or requires an additional act of Congress, whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection, and if so whether Donald Trump participated in that insurrection, and whether the President is an "officer of the United States" as meant by Section 3.Join us as a panel of experts, including Prof. Kurt Lash, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, and Prof. Ilya Somin, who also submitted an amicus brief, preview this case the day before the oral argument, discussing the case and the questions implicated by it.Featuring:Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

Join the DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the George Mason Student Chapter for an evening conversation and reception. Featuring:Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityThomas McCarthy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC; Adjunct Professor, George Mason University Scalia LawProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityDoors open at 6 with the program to begin promptly at 6:30. A reception will follow. This event is free to attend.

On January 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Devillier v. Texas. This takings case will determine whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.The petitioners in this case sued the state after the Texas Department of Transportation elevated an interstate and constructed a barrier to obstruct natural water flow, subsequently flooding and damaging the petitioners' properties. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, joined us to discuss the case and its developments following oral argument.For more analysis from Professor Somin, you can read his blog post on the arguments here and find his amicus brief on behalf of the CATO Institute here. Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court's 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Featuring: Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & BargerAllyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPHon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East TimorMark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

What do Critical Race Theory and antisemitism have in common? A lot, actually, from the roots of each movement, to the ideology, to the way they are weaponized by the left today. The overarching philosophy linking these movements together is a Manichean ordering of peoples into groups of oppressed or oppressor – usually, but not always, based on the color of one's skin. Indeed, it is no mistake that in the aftermath of WWII, Jews sought to categorize themselves as white, a move that has now fed the bizarre oppressor/colonizer trope so popular on the left. First Jews weren't white enough for the white supremacists, but now are too white for the CRT crowd. Not to mention the shifting ideological assaults on Jewish groups, once accused of being communists now accused of being capitalists. Yes, donors are pulling out of universities that harbor pro-terrorist groups; yes, the support of Hamas the past few weeks has been a PR disaster for wokeism. But it will take a lot more than that to root out the antisemitic and real race-based discrimination that has gripped America.David E. Bernstein holds a University Professorship chair at the Antonin Scalia Law School, where he has been teaching since 1995. He has also been a visiting professor at the University of Michigan, Georgetown University, William & Mary, Brooklyn Law School, the University of Turin, and Hebrew University. Professor Bernstein teaches Constitutional Law, Evidence, and Products Liability. His most recent book is Classified, The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America.Download the transcript here.

In the wake of Donald Trump's role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, lawsuits in states around the country are seeking to disqualify him from the 2024 election. Challengers to his eligibility invoke Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides in relevant part that "No person shall . . . hold any office . . . under the United States . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."As of now, there are nearly two dozen states in which litigation is ongoing to bar Trump from the ballot, and that number is only expected to grow. Earlier this week, a Colorado district began a week-long bench trial and, this Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear oral argument. And if a state does disqualify Trump, the United States Supreme Court will no doubt immediately hear the case.On Monday October 30, the University of Minnesota Law School held a conference with leading law and political science scholars on "Section 3, Insurrection, and the 2024 Election: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Bar Donald Trump from the Presidency?" Today's Lawfare Podcast is a recording of one of the conference panels, which focused on the political implications of the Section 3 cases.The moderator was Larry Jacobs of the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, and the panelists were Julia Azari, a Professor of Political Science at Marquette University; Ilya Somin, a Professor of Law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School; and Eric Segall, a Professor of Law at the Georgia State College of Law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jamie Weinstein begins his tenure as host of Monday Dispatch Podcasts with a discussion with Jeremy Rabkin. Rabkin, a professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, explains what exactly international law is and how it's relevant (or irrelevant) to Israel's war against Hamas. -Law without Nations?: Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States -Rabkin's profile at GMU Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Selvaggi discusses the implications of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case for race and ethnicity-based programs with David Bernstein, a Distinguished Law Professor at George Mason University and an Adjunct Fellow at the CATO Institute. Guest: David E. Bernstein holds a University Professorship chair at the Antonin Scalia Law School, where he […]

On Tuesday, October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America. Industry groups representing payday lenders brought a challenge arguing that the CFPB funding structure is unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause. The outcome of the case could have big effects not just on the future of the CFPB itself, but on the economy, markets, and the future of the administrative state. In this episode, two leading constitutional law scholars and Supreme Court experts—Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Professor Jennifer Mascot of the Antonin Scalia Law School— join Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments in the CFPB case, what questions or issues the justices were the most focused on, and predict how the Court might rule.     Resources:  CFPB v. CFSAA (oral argument transcript)  Brianne Gorod/Constitutional Accountability Center, Amicus Brief in support of petitioners  Jennifer Mascott/Separation of Power Clinic, Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Amicus Brief of 132 members of Congress in support of respondents  Seila Law v. CFPB (2020)  Appropriations Clause, Interactive Constitution     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Last week, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly retaining, mishandling, and concealing classified documents after he left office. Charged with 37 criminal counts—including many that stem from the Espionage Act—Trump appeared in a Miami federal court on Tuesday and pled not guilty to the charges brought against him. In this episode, legal experts Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Jamil Jaffer of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join to break down the legal and constitutional significance of the federal indictment. They also discuss potential outcomes of the prosecution, including effects on the upcoming 2024 presidential election; how these charges intersect with other charges being brought against President Trump in other courts including charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents; how other countries around the world deal with heads of state who have been charged with breaking national and international laws; and how the decision to prosecute a president affects rule of law and the future of constitutional democracy.  Resources: United States v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta (indictment) Espionage Act: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) The Presidential Records Act (PRA) Oona Hathaway, “What Donald Trump and Reality Winner Have in Common” NY Times, June 11, 2023  Oona Hathaway on Classification of Government Documents, Washington Journal Interview, January 24, 2023 Jamil Jaffer, on “The Lead with Jake Tapper”, June 12th, 2023, Complete Transcript Scott Bomboy, “The question of president immunity back in the spotlight” National Constitution Center, July 24, 2017 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.