Podcast appearances and mentions of brianne gorod

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. 

In general, are most laws and regulations constitutional? Should the courts do more to enforce constitutional limits, or should they defer to the political branches unless there are blatant violations? Cato's Ilya Shapiro and the Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra are joined by participating moderator Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution to explore the role of the Supreme Court when laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution.Learn More:"Crisis at the Supreme Court," by Ilya Shapiro"How the Supreme Court Undermines Its Own Legitimacy," by Ilya Shapiro"The Supreme Court: Too Important," by Ilya Shapiro"Against Judicial Restraint," by Ilya Shapiro"Chief Justice John Roberts Is under Tremendous Pressure," by Elizabeth Wydra"Will Trump Ever Face Consequences?," by Elizabeth Wydra"The First Magistrate in Foreign Pay," by Brianne Gorod and Elizabeth Wydra"Those Who Deny Birthright Citizenship Get the Constitution Wrong," by Elizabeth Wydra"No, Justice Stevens, We Don't Need to Repeal the Second Amendment," by Elizabeth Wydra Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Brianne Gorod is Chief Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. She is currently representing Congressman Huffman, among more than 200 co-plaintiffs in Congress, in an emoluments clause lawsuit against President Trump.

This week kicked off the public phase of the impeachment inquiry. On Wednesday, we heard the testimonies of State Department officials Bill Taylor and George Kent and on Friday the testimony of former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Vox’s Andrew Prokop helps us break them down.  Then, Brianne Gorod, the chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, helps us understand the term “obstruction of justice.” What does it mean? When does it apply? And has the president committed it?  Plus: How Republicans are normalizing obstruction of justice in all of its forms -- and the precedent that sets for the future. References: Andrew Prokop's 4 takeaways from the first public impeachment hearing Want to contact the show? Reach out at ezrakleinshow@vox.com Credits: Guest host - Sean Illing Producer, engineer, and editor - Jeff Geld Researcher - Roge Karma Theme music composed by Jon Natchez  Special thanks to Liz Nelson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two years ago, the Trump administration decided to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — a policy enacted under President Obama that deferred the deportation of undocumented people brought to the United States as children. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard challenges to that decision and was faced with the questions: can the Court even review the decision to end DACA, since it was an action taken by the Department of Homeland Security, an executive branch agency? If it can, was the decision to rescind DACA legal? And is DACA itself legal and constitutional? Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston join host Jeffrey Rosen to dive into the questions. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Two years ago, the Trump administration decided to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — a policy enacted under President Obama that deferred the deportation of undocumented people brought to the United States as children. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard challenges to that decision and was faced with the questions: can the Court even review the decision to end DACA, since it was an action taken by the Department of Homeland Security, an executive branch agency? If it can, was the decision to rescind DACA legal? And is DACA itself legal and constitutional? Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston join host Jeffrey Rosen to dive into the questions. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss the brewing dispute over Trump's tax returns. They address whether the Democrats can force Trump to turn them over and what might happen if he refuses.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesAt Take Care, Brianne Gorod discusses the issue here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Sean Marotta from Hogan Lovells (and #AppellateTwitter fame) joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about the Supreme Court's death penalty decision and why the Kansas Attorney General's office will have a very busy summer. Elizabeth also chats with Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center about progressive originalism. Stay tuned for Supreme Trivia!Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org. And don't forget to leave a 5-star rating! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We take a deep dive into the upcoming Supreme Court term, set to begin Monday, October 1, and explore forthcoming cases that involve everything from double jeopardy and excessive fines to cemeteries and endangered frogs. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, who both filed amicus briefs in many of the cases discussed, and filed jointly in one of this term’s key cases, Gamble v. United States. 

ABOUT THIS EPISODE Judge Brett Kavanaugh currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but he's better known now as the more recent Supreme Court nominee by President Donald Trump, nominated to replace retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. This is the second of two episodes focused on Kavanaugh's record and thinking, and the impact his addition would likely have on the Court. I spoke with Jonathan Adler and Brianne Gorod. Adler is the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, as well as the Director of its Center for Business Law and Regulation. He has clerked for the Honorable David B. Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Gorod is Chief Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, and has clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. LINKS Jonathan Adler's profile at Case Western (https://law.case.edu/Our-School/Faculty-Staff/Meet-Our-Faculty/Faculty-Detail/id/83) Brianne Gorod's profile at the Constitutional Accountability Center (https://www.theusconstitution.org/staff/brianne-j-gorod/) Agri Processor Co Inc v. National Labor Relations Board (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1319922.html) On Garza v. Hargan (https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/04/garza-v-hargan/) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) "The stare decisis Court" (Adler, on the Roberts Court and precedent) (https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/08/the-stare-decisis-court) U.S. v. Burwell (related to mens rea, or criminal intent) (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2741C28AEA6A76C185257A4F004FC9CC/$file/06-3070-1387345.pdf) U.S. v. Queen Nwoye (related to battered woman syndrome) (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D0A698EEBDAA5E2F85257FCE00525505/$file/14-3060-1618595.pdf) Janus v. AFSCME (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf) V.L. v. E.L. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.L._v._E.L.) Pavan v. Smith (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf) "Supreme Court clerks are not a particularly diverse lot" (Adler, in the Washington Post, for the Volokh Conspiracy) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/12/12/supreme-court-clerks-are-not-a-particularly-diverse-lot/?utm_term=.2c6a73d23c72) "The Supreme Court is terrible at hiring diverse law clerks, but Neil Gorsuch is surprisingly good at it" (Mark Joseph Stern, at Slate) (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/the-supreme-court-is-terrible-at-hiring-diverse-law-clerks-but-neil-gorsuch-is-surprisingly-good-at-it.html) Cover art credit: Office of Senator Chuck Grassley (Wikimedia Commons) Special Guests: Brianne Gorod and Jonathan H. Adler (law).

Jeffrey Rosen leads a discussion about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Gorsuch’s first year on the Supreme Court, and what the future of the Court might look like. Brianne Gorod is the Constitutional Accountability Center’s chief counsel. She previously served as CAC’s Appellate Counsel. Elizabeth Slattery is a legal fellow and appellate advocacy program manager at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE. 

“Obstruction of Justice” has been a term swirling around in the headlines lately, but what does the charge actually mean? And how do you prove it? We’re speaking with Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center to learn about the many different ways one can be accused of obstructing justice – from witness tampering and retaliation to simple contempt and the many options in-between. 

Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute break down the busy final days of the Court's 2016-2017 term. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute break down the busy final days of the Court's 2016-2017 term. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham University Law School, discuss the Supreme Court case Hernandez v. Mesa, which concerns a Mexican boy, who was shot by U.S. border control agents. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Bloomberg's Karen Moskow and Bob Moon report the day's top legal stories. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham University Law School, discuss the Supreme Court case Hernandez v. Mesa, which concerns a Mexican boy, who was shot by U.S. border control agents. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Bloomberg's Karen Moskow and Bob Moon report the day's top legal stories.

Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Andy Grewal of the University of Iowa discuss questions about the President's business operations. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Andy Grewal of the University of Iowa discuss questions about the President's business operations. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

When interpretations and rules depend on what’s true about the world (so, all the time), judges have to reach conclusions about those truths. But courts are not exactly like administrative agencies or legislatures, and they depend on adversarial parties to contest the truth. The Supreme Court, in particular, has come to rely on an elite bar to organize and present facts and studies. Having been through our usual vetting process of successfully appearing on the Colbert Report, Alli Larsen is ready for the big time and joins us to discuss how courts deal with the problem of factiness (which is the ivory tower version of truthiness). Alli’s appearance on the Colbert Report (01:02). The pronunciation of “amicus” (05:24). The main topic (10:36). This show’s links: Alli Larsen’s faculty profile and writing Alli on the Colbert Report discussing amicus briefs and factfinding Before you write in, yes, the Dan Quayle story is false, but is that really the point? Oral Argument 74: Minimum Curiosity (guest Amanda Frost) Rowe v. Gibson Alli Orr Lasen, The Amicus Machine Alli Orr Larsen, The Trouble with Amicus Facts Alli Orr Larsen, Factual Precedents Amanda Frost, The Limits of Advocacy Brianne Gorod, The Adversarial Myth: Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding Glossip v. Gross (death penalty) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (violent video games) About the Brandeis Brief Gonzales v. Carhart Reva Siegel, The Right’s Reasons: Constitutional Conflict and the Spread of Woman-Protective Antiabortion Argument Gregory Klass and Kathryn Zeiler, Against Endowment Theory: Experimental Economics and Legal Scholarship Joseph Kearney and Thomas Merrill, The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court William Eskridge Jr., Politics Without Romance: Implications of Public Choice Theory for Statutory Interpretation Special Guest: Alli Larsen.

Should judges surf the web to scrutinize the truth of facts in front of them? With Amanda Frost, we discuss a recent case in which Judge Posner did just that. Some basic internet research cast serious doubt on a prison doctor’s medical opinion suggesting a prisoner did not need Zantac before meals to control a serious esophageal condition. While the websites Posner visited and cited did not control the outcome, they supported his conclusion that the evidence in the district court was insufficient to throw out the prisoner’s case. This show’s links: Amanda Frost’s faculty profile and writing Rowe v. Gibson Coleen Barger, On the Internet Nobody Knows You’re a Judge Alli Orr Larsen, The Trouble with Amicus Facts; see also Alli Orr Larsen, Factual Precedents, which Christian must have had rolling around in his head somewhere Alli Orr Larsen on the Colbert Report discussing amicus briefs and factfinding Amanda Frost, The Limits of Advocacy Brianne Gorod, The Adversarial Myth: Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding Zantac’s Comparison of OTC Heartburn Treatment Options Mitchell v. JCG Industries (dissent and concurrence in the denial of a rehearing and Posner’s defense of the court’s staff’s trying on protective gear to gauge the plausibility of the claim that it took more than fifteen minutes) Special Guest: Amanda Frost.