Podcast appearances and mentions of ashutosh bhagwat

Headlines touting the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado presidential ballot obscured division among the justices over the Constitution's insurrection clause. UC Davis School of Law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat joins Cases and Controversies to explain what the justices did and didn't agree on March 4 regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that means for the November election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This week the News Cycle talked to Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza, and UC Davis Professors Garen Wintemute and Ashutosh Bhagwat, about the recent incident at the Mary L. Stephen's public library, and its aftermath. Interviews by Noah Meyer. Produced by Rowan Reising and Noah Meyer. Theme music by Daniel Ruiz-Jimenez.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus. DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Aug 28 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 1, 2020)Sep 21 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Sep 28 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 30, 2020.Oct 01 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Principals Association filed.Oct 01 2020 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed.Nov 30 2020 | Brief of respondents B.L., a minor, by and through her father Lawrence Levy and her mother Betty Lou Levy in opposition filed.Dec 14 2020 | Reply of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed.Dec 16 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Jan 08 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Feb 22 2021 | Brief of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed.Feb 22 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Feb 24 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Cyberbullying Research Center, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National School Boards Association, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. in support of neither party filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Nation Education Association in support of neither party filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Association of Pupil Services Administrators and Pennsylvania Association of Pupil Services Administrators filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Principals Association filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of First Amendment and Education Law Scholars filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Huntsville, Alabama City Board of Education, et al. filed.Mar 01 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice in support of neither party filed.Mar 12 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 28, 2021.Mar 15 2021 | Record requested.Mar 24 2021 | Brief of respondent B.L., a minor, by and through her father Lawrence Levy and her mother Betty Lou Levy filed.Mar 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 29 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.Mar 30 2021 | CIRCULATEDMar 30 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Parents Defending Education filed. (Distributed)Mar 30 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Liberty Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Life Legal Defense Foundation filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Independent Women's Law Center filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of College Athlete Advocates filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law and Education Professors filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The National Women's Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Jane Bambauer, Ashutosh Bhagwat, and Eugene Volokh filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of School Discipline Professors filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of Louisiana, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Student School Board Members filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancement Project, Juvenile Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Student Press Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of VanHo Law filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Mary Beth Tinker & John Tinker filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of HISD Student Congress, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Teachers, School Administrators, and the National Council of Teachers of English filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 05 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioner Mahanoy Area School District filed. (Distributed)Apr 28 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David D. Cole, of Washington, D. C.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel explored "Rule of Law, or Just Making it Up? First Amendment Tiered Scrutiny."Different levels of Scrutiny are a staple of First Amendment Jurisprudence. Strict scrutiny for viewpoint-based restrictions, intermediate scrutiny for restrictions on commercial speech, and, over the years, amorphously defined other types of “heightened” scrutiny for restrictions on association, campaign-related speech, public vs. private figure defamation, and purportedly incidental speech restrictions. In recent years, however, various judges and justices have called for revisiting ahistorical or a-textual approaches constitutional analysis, in both the First Amendment and other contexts. And many scholars have long questioned whether tiered scrutiny is just a smoke-screen for ad hoc balancing, allowing judges to impose their own preferred outcomes in any given case. This panel will explore both the theory and practice of tiered scrutiny in First Amendment analysis. Is there a textual or historical basis for creating such differential levels of scrutiny? Is a more historical or absolutist approach more faithful to the constitutional text? Is it even possible to avoid creating such judicial doctrines at the margins where the application of First Amendment principles to moderns circumstances can be challenging at best? As for the practical application of tiered scrutiny, how does one distinguish between important or compelling interests versus valid but otherwise ordinary interests? How does one determine a less restrictive means of accomplishing a governmental goal, and how much loss of efficiency is too much to ask to preserve some additional amount of speech? Are courts even remotely capable of providing consistent answers to such questions across a range of cases, or is it inevitable that the answer to any such questions will be entirely a function of the judge’s policy preferences?If our judicial system is meant to be based on the rule of law rather than the rule of judges, does tiered scrutiny advance or hinder that ideal? Does the “rule of law” allow any degree of judicial discretion or judgment and, if so, is there any textual basis for deciding how much judgment is allowed and how much effectively eliminates any “rule” at all.Featuring:Prof. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Boochever and Bird Endowed Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality; Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of LawProf. Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

California Lawyer Magazine’s editor Martin Lasden welcomes UC Hastings Professor Ashutosh Bhagwat who contends that most Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our constitutional rights are supposed to work. His book, “The Myth of Rights: The Purposes and Limits of Constitutional Rights,” was published in February 2010. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 21660]

UC Hastings law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat welcomes Lawrence Lessig, known as the Elvis of cyberlaw. For much of his career, Lessig focused his work on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright. He argues copyright laws should be updated in our hybrid economy - one where commercial entities leverage value from sharing economies. Lessig is now the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 21098]

UC Hastings law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat welcomes Lawrence Lessig, known as the Elvis of cyberlaw. For much of his career, Lessig focused his work on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright. He argues copyright laws should be updated in our hybrid economy - one where commercial entities leverage value from sharing economies. Lessig is now the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 21098]