Podcast appearances and mentions of Brian T Fitzpatrick

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.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with opposing viewpoints about whether conservatives should embrace the current class action system. First on the show is Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. Later, we hear from Ted Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. You can find Brian on X, formerly Twitter, at @BTFitzPat and Ted at @TedFrank. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/future-of-freedom/support

The reach of bar associations, including the ABA, extends further than many realize. From evaluating judges, accrediting law schools, disciplining lawyer speech outside of work, to taking political positions, bar associations play a major role in our profession and in American life. Should bar associations focus just on legal practice? Should they continue to be involved in staking out policy positions? What about the ABA’s role in accrediting law schools? Are there any limits on their regulatory power?Featuring:Mr. William Adams, Jr., Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, American Bar Association; Former Dean, Western State College of LawProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law SchoolHon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Former U.S. Solicitor GeneralMr. Daniel Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PCModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

This week, Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School, joins Abby in the classroom to help with her lesson plan on class action lawsuits.  Professor Fitzpatrick explains how class action suits come together, how they unfold, and how they impact defendants. He also discusses how settlements are distributed and what the pros and cons of these suits might be. Keep up with Abby after class on Twitter: @AbbyHornacek 

On June 11, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel titled "Third Party Litigation Financing: A Distorting or Reinforcing Practice?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.Third party litigation financing (TPLF) is the practice of external financiers investing in lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of any settlement or judgment. TPLF is a global industry with approximately $100 billion available to funders and firms. Proponents argue that the practice makes it possible for marginalized plaintiffs to bring difficult cases that wouldn't otherwise be brought. Critics, however, claim that it harms the legal system, distorting the plaintiff and defendant roles and making lawsuit settlements more difficult and expensive. Are these criticisms fair? Or do the benefits outweigh the objections? Join us on June 11 for an expert panel who will consider these questions and more.As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolAndrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Erin M. Hawley, Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, Legal Fellow at the Independent Women's ForumHon. Luther Johnson Strange, III, Former Senator, State of AlabamaModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On June 11, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel titled "Third Party Litigation Financing: A Distorting or Reinforcing Practice?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.Third party litigation financing (TPLF) is the practice of external financiers investing in lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of any settlement or judgment. TPLF is a global industry with approximately $100 billion available to funders and firms. Proponents argue that the practice makes it possible for marginalized plaintiffs to bring difficult cases that wouldn't otherwise be brought. Critics, however, claim that it harms the legal system, distorting the plaintiff and defendant roles and making lawsuit settlements more difficult and expensive. Are these criticisms fair? Or do the benefits outweigh the objections? Join us on June 11 for an expert panel who will consider these questions and more.As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolAndrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Erin M. Hawley, Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, Legal Fellow at the Independent Women's ForumHon. Luther Johnson Strange, III, Former Senator, State of AlabamaModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On February 7, 2019, The Federalist Society hosted a panel discussing the role of the bar in selecting Iowa's judges.Tom Levis is the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, and serves as an elected member of the Judicial Election District 5C Judicial Nominating Commission. He is a shareholder at the Brick Gentry law firm in Des Moines and has been an active member and leader of the Polk County and Iowa State Bar Associations. Professor Brian Fitzpatrick is a national expert on judicial selection. Prior to joining the faculty of the Vanderbilt University Law School, he practiced at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., served as a Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations for Senator John Cornyn, and clerked for Justice Scalia at the U.S. Supreme Court.Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolTom Levis, President, Iowa State Bar AssociationIntroduction: Ryan G. Koopmans, Iowa Lawyers Chapter

On February 7, 2019, The Federalist Society hosted a panel discussing the role of the bar in selecting Iowa's judges.Tom Levis is the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, and serves as an elected member of the Judicial Election District 5C Judicial Nominating Commission. He is a shareholder at the Brick Gentry law firm in Des Moines and has been an active member and leader of the Polk County and Iowa State Bar Associations. Professor Brian Fitzpatrick is a national expert on judicial selection. Prior to joining the faculty of the Vanderbilt University Law School, he practiced at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., served as a Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations for Senator John Cornyn, and clerked for Justice Scalia at the U.S. Supreme Court.Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolTom Levis, President, Iowa State Bar AssociationIntroduction: Ryan G. Koopmans, Iowa Lawyers Chapter

On October 29, 2018, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted the second annual Kentucky Chapters Conference. The third panel discussed "Judicial Selection in Kentucky."Meryl Justin Chertoff - Executive Director, Justice and Society Program, The Aspen InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick - Vanderbilt University School of LawChad Meredith - Deputy General Counsel, Governor Matt BevinModerator: Hon. John Roach - Ransdell Roach & Royse PLLC; former Kentucky Supreme Court Justice

On October 29, 2018, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted the second annual Kentucky Chapters Conference. The third panel discussed "Judicial Selection in Kentucky."Meryl Justin Chertoff - Executive Director, Justice and Society Program, The Aspen InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick - Vanderbilt University School of LawChad Meredith - Deputy General Counsel, Governor Matt BevinModerator: Hon. John Roach - Ransdell Roach & Royse PLLC; former Kentucky Supreme Court Justice

Join us in a discussion with our experts, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick and Professor Stephen Ware, as we review The Case for Political Appointment of Judges, a new white paper from Professor Fitzpatrick which argues that political appointment is the best way to select state judges. This paper is a part of a series of papers commissioned by the Federalist Society on the leading methods of state judicial selection. The first paper in the series made the case for partisan judicial elections, and a future paper will make the case for commission-based appointment (the Missouri plan). Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolProf. Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law

Join us in a discussion with our experts, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick and Professor Stephen Ware, as we review The Case for Political Appointment of Judges, a new white paper from Professor Fitzpatrick which argues that political appointment is the best way to select state judges. This paper is a part of a series of papers commissioned by the Federalist Society on the leading methods of state judicial selection. The first paper in the series made the case for partisan judicial elections, and a future paper will make the case for commission-based appointment (the Missouri plan). Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolProf. Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law

In addition to being a brilliant legal thinker, Justice Scalia was widely regarded as a masterful legal writer, perhaps the best of his generation. His gifted prose and frequent use of humor and sarcasm made Justice Scalia's opinions -- whether majority or dissent -- must-reads for lawyers, judges, professors, and law students alike. Commentators from across the philosophical spectrum admired Justice Scalia's writing skill. Just a year before his passing, for example, the New Republic, dubbed Scalia “the foremost living practitioner of performative legal prose." This panel discussion will examine the impact Justice Scalia's writing had on American jurisprudence. Aside from the force of his arguments, what impact did his writing style have on the opinions written by his colleagues on the Supreme Court and judges on lower courts, the briefs filed by practicing lawyers, and even the way law students learned the law? Our panelists will bring a variety of perspectives to this question: former clerk, judge, professors, and critics. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School; Prof. Toni M. Massaro, Regents' Professor, Milton O. Riepe Chair in Constitutional Law and Dean Emerita, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; Mr. Kannon Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP; and Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Moderator: Hon. Joan L. Larsen, Michigan Supreme Court. Introduction: Hon. Rachel Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce.

What regulatory approach best fosters commercial innovation? Traditionally, it had been thought that ex post, decentralized approaches that exploit private attorney generals like the common law were best, but many business interests today advocate ex ante, centralized, public sector approaches like federal statutes or federal rulemakings that preempt the common law. This panel will explore which attributes of regulation best serve innovation: ex ante or ex post? Decentralized or centralized? Public sector or private sector? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; Prof. Brian Galle, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Chairman, Litigation Practice Group.