Podcasts about chapman university fowler school

0:00 - CNBC’s Joe Kiernan pushes on Paul Ryan over his call for unity, well wishes for Trump to succeed 14:46 - Worcester, MA, pronoungate, Trans Councilor Thu Nguyen 30:43 - Chicagoland govt schools and immigration enforcement 52:16 - Lorenzo Sewell is the Senior Pastor at 180 Church in Detroit. He joined Dan and Amy to talk about what it has been like to be selected by President-Elect Trump to give the prayer at the inauguration 01:03:29 - President Trump’s Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent destroying the Democrats’ war against fossil fuels 01:17:17 - Ja’Mal Green is a real estate broker, philanthropist, and former candidate for mayor GenerationalGreen.com. He joined Dan and Amy to talk about his change of heart on President Trump 01:33:28 - John Eastman is a Former Constitutional Law Professor and Dean, Chapman University Fowler School of Law and Founding Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He joined Dan and Amy to talk about Schumer’s plan to try to take down Trump’s cabinet nominees & the new documentary ‘The Eastman Dilemma: Lawfare or Justice’ 01:47:12 - OPEN MIC FRIDAY See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tim is a Chapman University Fowler School of Law graduate who works as a Principal at Kowal Law Group. Join Tim on a captivating journey through his path to law school, a unique six-year odyssey from undergraduate studies to his eventual enrollment. In this episode, Tim and I explore a plethora of topics, delving into his pivotal decision to specialize in Appellate Litigation, and offering invaluable advice to aspiring law students and seasoned lawyers alike on the nuances of litigation work.Tim generously shares insights gleaned from his diverse career experiences, emphasizing the importance of delivering tangible value to clients and articulating his personal philosophy on the concept of value. Furthermore, Tim provides a fascinating glimpse into his foray into content creation with his acclaimed podcast, "The California Appellate Podcast," detailing how this endeavor has not only fostered connections but also translated into tangible business leads.In a riveting segment, Tim and I delve into the realm of philosophy, engaging in a spirited discussion that will undoubtedly resonate with enthusiasts of Aristotle, Machiavelli, and other luminaries. Additionally, Tim offers curated recommendations spanning podcasts, books, and tech products aimed at enhancing efficiency and effectiveness, empowering listeners to streamline their operations.Don't miss out on Tim's enriching insights and engaging dialogue. Tune in to his podcast and explore the wealth of content he has to offer.Tim's LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/tim-kowalTim's Podcast: https://www.calpodcast.comCheck out the Official sponsor of the Lawyers in the Making Podcast Rhetoric:Rhetoric takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lawyersinthemaking.substack.com

This month, Michael and Diana talk with Professor Ernesto Hernández-López from the Chapman University Fowler School of Law about a recent opinion piece he wrote for Al Jazeera titled “Drop it America and Canada: A Corn Clash with Mexico helps no one.”  Professor Hernández, Michael, and Diana discuss the background for this piece, what is at stake in trade policy and politics, and implications for food law and policy. Ernesto Hernández-López is Professor of Law at the Chapman University Fowler School of Law.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find Professor Hernández's article, “Drop it America and Canada: A Corn Clash with Mexico helps no one” here.  Some other work by Professor Hernández is here: Opinion Pieces·      “Why Seed Companies Fear México,” INTER PRESS SERVICE: NEWS AGENCY, Nov. 18, 2021·      “The Death of Neoliberal Corn,” LATINO REBELS, Oct. 19, 2021·      “Fighting GMO Corn, for Mexico's Soul,” LATINO REBELS, Sept. 16, 2020Scholarly Pieces·      “Racializing Trade in Corn: México Fights Maíz Imports and GMOs,” 25 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW (JIEL) (2022) ·      “GMO Corn, México, and Coloniality,” 22 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF ENTERTAINMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAW 724-783 (2020)·      “Border Brutalism,” 46 Fordham Int'l L.J. 213 (2023).   A link to the book by Michael Fakhri, Sugar and the Making of International Trade Law, mentioned by Professor Hernández is here.    

In today's episode, The Mentors Radio Host Ric Brutocao talks with John Eastman, Esq., Ph.D., a Constitutional lawyer, and a Senior Fellow and Director of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He is also a former Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University Fowler School of Law and a frequent radio and TV guest, including on the Hannity and Hugh Hewitt shows. He is a former clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and a very sharp mind who discusses not only the brilliance of our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution but also its impact on business today. Find Show Notes here. Listen Below… and Be sure to sign up for the FREE podcast — on any platform or device — here, and don't miss an episode of THE MENTORS RADIO!

Featured interview: Analysis on the US Supreme Court's decision to reinstate "Remain in Mexico" policy-미 대법원의 이민자 '멕시코 대기' 정책 유지 판결 분석Guest: Professor Marisa Cianciarulo, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Chapman University Fowler School of LawSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this Geoeconomics Podcast episode, Aleksa Burmazovic talks with Tom W. Bell, lecturer at the Chapman University Fowler School of Law, founder of Archimediate LLC, and leading legal thinker and scholar of the SEZ space. Tom W. Bell:  http://www.tomwbell.com/ "Your Next Government?" Audiobook:https://www.audible.com/pd/Your-Next-Government-Audiobook/B08J28YHSL Prospera:https://prospera.hn/ Ulex and the Institute for Competitive Governance:https://instituteforcompgov.org/ulex Free Society Project:https://www.freesociety.com/ Dubai International Financial Center:https://www.difc.ae/ Balaji Srinivasan's 1729:https://1729.com/ Scott Alexander's Piece on ZEDEs:https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prospectus-on-prospera Tom's Paper on Common Law Zones:http://ojs.instituteforcompgov.org/index.php/jsj/article/view/30/12 CERN:https://home.cern/ This podcast was produced by the Adrianople Group. The Adrianople Group is a business intelligence firm that focuses on special economic zones, venture capital, private equity, and geoeconomics. For more information, please visit: https://www.adrianoplegroup.com/     https://twitter.com/geoeconomicspod This podcast is licensed under Creative Commons with Attribution #Podcast #Adrianople #AdrianopleGroup #Geoeconomics #Economics #Infrastructure #Geopolitcs #Interview #Expert #Trade #Zone #Economy #Markets #FreeTradeZone #FreeTrade #Business #Development #Sustainable #Regulations #Law #Legal #Governance #SEZ #Future #Cities #CharterCity #CharterCities #NewCity #SmartCity #SmartCities #Government #2030 #Market #Institute #Study #SpecialJurisdiction #TomWBell #Prospera #Honduras #ChapmanUniversity #ArchimediateLLC #Legalthinker #Code #Bitcoin #CommonLaw

Zoom Webinar ID: Webinar ID: 941 2457 3082Please click the link below to join the webinar:https://fedsoc.zoom.us/j/94124573082Article II and the 12th Amendment require those seeking the office of President and Vice-President be a “natural-born citizen.” The 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." But what does it mean to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” These two texts have been the subject of controversy throughout the past decade, and present interesting legal questions for constitutional theorists. Is it enough to be born in the U.S.A.?In conjunction with the Chapman University and UCLA Federalist Society chapters, the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group is poised to host renowned Constitutional scholars John Eastman and Eugene Volokh. Eastman and Volokh will debate the meaning of the Constitution’s citizenship clauses live on Zoom. The Honorable Andrew Guilford, Ret., will moderate with Q&A to follow. Featuring: Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawJohn Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of LawModerator: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Court, Central District of California

In today's episode, The Mentors Radio Host Ric Brutocao talks with John Eastman, Esq., Ph.D., the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. Mr. Eastman also serves as Senior Fellow and Director of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a frequent radio and TV guest, including on the Hannity and Hugh Hewitt shows. He is a former clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and a very sharp mind who discusses not only the brilliance of our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution but also its impact on business today. Find Show Notes here. Listen Below... and Be sure to sign up for the FREE podcast -- on any platform or device -- here, and don't miss an episode of THE MENTORS RADIO!

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was vacated in part and reversed in part, the judgment of the D.C. Circuit (Trump v. NAACP) was affirmed, and various orders of the Second Circuit (Wolf v. Vidal) were vacated, affirmed in part, or reversed in part. All the cases are remanded. The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and implications for the future.To discuss the case, on this special panel episode, we have: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of LawChristopher Hajec, Director of Litigation at the Immigration Reform Law InstituteMario Loyola, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise InstituteWilliam A. Stock, Partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was vacated in part and reversed in part, the judgment of the D.C. Circuit (Trump v. NAACP) was affirmed, and various orders of the Second Circuit (Wolf v. Vidal) were vacated, affirmed in part, or reversed in part. All the cases are remanded. The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and implications for the future.To discuss the case, on this special panel episode, we have: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of LawChristopher Hajec, Director of Litigation at the Immigration Reform Law InstituteMario Loyola, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise InstituteWilliam A. Stock, Partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a single-director agency seemingly unaccountable to the president or anyone else. The lawsuit was brought by a law firm that assists in resolving personal-debt issues, among other legal work that puts it in the crosshairs of those who want greater regulation of consumer-facing financial services. The CFPB is the most independent of independent agencies, with power to make rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations in its own administrative hearings, and punish wrongdoers. It doesn’t need Congress to approve its budget, because its funding requests are met by another agency insulated from political control: the Federal Reserve. Even CFPB supporters concede that the CFPB structure and authority is unique. John Eastman and Brian Johnson join us to discuss the Supreme Court's decision and the greater implications. Featuring: -- John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law-- Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a single-director agency seemingly unaccountable to the president or anyone else. The lawsuit was brought by a law firm that assists in resolving personal-debt issues, among other legal work that puts it in the crosshairs of those who want greater regulation of consumer-facing financial services. The CFPB is the most independent of independent agencies, with power to make rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations in its own administrative hearings, and punish wrongdoers. It doesn’t need Congress to approve its budget, because its funding requests are met by another agency insulated from political control: the Federal Reserve. Even CFPB supporters concede that the CFPB structure and authority is unique. John Eastman and Brian Johnson join us to discuss the Supreme Court's decision and the greater implications. Featuring: -- John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law-- Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was vacated in part and reversed in part, the judgment of the D.C. Circuit (Trump v. NAACP) was affirmed, and various orders of the Second Circuit (Wolf v. Vidal) were vacated, affirmed in part, or reversed in part. All the cases are remanded. The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and implications for the future.Featuring: -- Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law-- Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute-- William A. Stock, Partner , Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was vacated in part and reversed in part, the judgment of the D.C. Circuit (Trump v. NAACP) was affirmed, and various orders of the Second Circuit (Wolf v. Vidal) were vacated, affirmed in part, or reversed in part. All the cases are remanded. The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and implications for the future.Featuring: -- Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law-- Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute-- William A. Stock, Partner , Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a single-director agency seemingly unaccountable to the president or anyone else. The lawsuit was brought by a law firm that assists in resolving personal-debt issues, among other legal work that puts it in the crosshairs of those who want greater regulation of consumer-facing financial services. The CFPB is the most independent of independent agencies, with power to make rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations in its own administrative hearings, and punish wrongdoers. It doesn’t need Congress to approve its budget, because its funding requests are met by another agency insulated from political control: the Federal Reserve. Even CFPB supporters concede that the CFPB structure and authority is unique. Please join John Eastman for a preview of oral arguments in this important case.Featuring: -- Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a single-director agency seemingly unaccountable to the president or anyone else. The lawsuit was brought by a law firm that assists in resolving personal-debt issues, among other legal work that puts it in the crosshairs of those who want greater regulation of consumer-facing financial services. The CFPB is the most independent of independent agencies, with power to make rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations in its own administrative hearings, and punish wrongdoers. It doesn’t need Congress to approve its budget, because its funding requests are met by another agency insulated from political control: the Federal Reserve. Even CFPB supporters concede that the CFPB structure and authority is unique. Please join John Eastman for a preview of oral arguments in this important case.Featuring: -- Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law

On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Horizontal Federalism: May States Project Their Sovereignty Beyond Their Borders?".The Supreme Court's recent decision in Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (overturning Nevada v. Hall) enforced an originalist understanding, limiting attempts by a state to extend its sovereign powers beyond its borders. Although often overlooked, vertical federalism arose in part as way of controlling the abuses of horizontal federalism under the Articles of Confederation. Some states had arguably been using their powers to infringe on the powers of other states. The Constitution’s strong federal government (yet with a limited number of powers) modified, without eliminating, horizontal federalism. The Constitution adapted from the Articles of Confederation certain horizontal provisions such as privileges and immunities, extradition, and full faith and credit. The two forms of federalism are encased within our current system of separation of powers. Vertical federalism is evident when different groups of state AGs -- Red state AGs against Obama and now Blue state AGs against Trump-- have challenged federal policies in suits filed in federal courts. Different and more difficult to challenge, however, are attempts by one state or a group of states to make its policies effectively binding on other states. Examples include sanctuary state laws, California’s Internet regulation, cities and states suing oil companies in an attempt to regulate global warming and the National Popular Vote Compact. These developments implicate not only federalism and separation of powers, but the limits of state police powers and the natural right of self-government. Do these actions by some states necessarily come at the expense of other states? Do they violate the fundamental right of citizens to be governed by their own state constitutions and the separation of powers system of the federal Constitution?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University and Visiting Professor, Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law CenterDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of LawProf. Edward L. Rubin, University Professor of Law and Political Science, Vanderbilt Law SchoolMr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Michael Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Horizontal Federalism: May States Project Their Sovereignty Beyond Their Borders?".The Supreme Court's recent decision in Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (overturning Nevada v. Hall) enforced an originalist understanding, limiting attempts by a state to extend its sovereign powers beyond its borders. Although often overlooked, vertical federalism arose in part as way of controlling the abuses of horizontal federalism under the Articles of Confederation. Some states had arguably been using their powers to infringe on the powers of other states. The Constitution’s strong federal government (yet with a limited number of powers) modified, without eliminating, horizontal federalism. The Constitution adapted from the Articles of Confederation certain horizontal provisions such as privileges and immunities, extradition, and full faith and credit. The two forms of federalism are encased within our current system of separation of powers. Vertical federalism is evident when different groups of state AGs -- Red state AGs against Obama and now Blue state AGs against Trump-- have challenged federal policies in suits filed in federal courts. Different and more difficult to challenge, however, are attempts by one state or a group of states to make its policies effectively binding on other states. Examples include sanctuary state laws, California’s Internet regulation, cities and states suing oil companies in an attempt to regulate global warming and the National Popular Vote Compact. These developments implicate not only federalism and separation of powers, but the limits of state police powers and the natural right of self-government. Do these actions by some states necessarily come at the expense of other states? Do they violate the fundamental right of citizens to be governed by their own state constitutions and the separation of powers system of the federal Constitution?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University and Visiting Professor, Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law CenterDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of LawProf. Edward L. Rubin, University Professor of Law and Political Science, Vanderbilt Law SchoolMr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Michael Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

The City of Chicago, in addition to other state and local governments, sued the Federal Government after Attorney General Jeff Sessions attempted to withhold certain federal funds from "sanctuary cities." Sessions' move is intended to prevent these cities from stymieing federal immigration enforcement. Chicago and others claim withholding federal funds violates the Constitution and threatens police anti-crime efforts. Join us as we discuss the nature of these issues with Professor Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, and Professor John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Tom Garvey, Tom Molloy, and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

In his seminal decision in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the First Amendment typically does not authorize courts to grant religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. This decision altered the 1963 Sherbert v. Verner test which had given courts the power to strike down any law that (1) if it substantially burdened religious practice, was not (2) based on a compelling government interest, and (3) narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Rather, Scalia said that religious adherents should look to the political process for accommodation, and he consistently supported the constitutionality of such accommodations. In response to Smith, a primary means of such accommodation has been the passage of state and federal Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), which codify the Sherbert test. However, in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges (or Hobby Lobby), RFRAs have become the focus of intense political controversy. What do these laws actually do in practice? Are they a good idea? Would a different approach to protect religious liberty be better? -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute; Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor, Concurrent Professor of Political Science, Notre Dame Law School; Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; and Prof. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre Dame. Moderator: Prof. Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy/SPE, Claremont Graduate University. Introduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life.

At the American Bar Association’s Midyear Meeting, there was a discussion about Evenwel v. Abbott, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that will determine the constitutionality of a Texas legislative redistricting plan that could have extensive implications if the state’s approach is overturned. In this episode of Special Reports, Laurence Colletti interviews presenters Dr. John Eastman and Thomas Saenz about Evenwel v. Abbott, the issues of voting rights and federalism, and the impact of Justice Scalia’s death on this important case. Eastman and Saenz then debate their opposing viewpoints on how to redistrict: according to population or according to eligible voters in a given district. Dr. John Eastman, from the Chapman University Fowler School of Law in Orange, California, is a former Supreme Court Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1999 he founded the Center for Constitutional Jurist Prudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute. Their mission is to recover the principles of the American Founding in their Constitutional Jurist Prudence. Thomas Saenz is president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a national civil rights legal organization whose mission is to promote the civil and constitutional rights of all latinos living in the United States. They focus on the areas of employment, education, immigrant rights, and voting rights.

Attorney-Client Privilege predates US history and is a fixture of Western Law. Pro advocates of its proliferation declare its necessity to a fair and adequate defense. According to many legal experts, NSA monitoring of privileged attorney-client communications stands in direct violation to the United States Bill of Rights and yet others disagree. In this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams shed light on this issue with guests Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine School of Law and Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University Fowler School of Law. Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. His areas of expertise include, but are not limited to, constitutional law, federal practice, and civil rights. Erwin is a renowned author of seven books and nearly 200 articles in top law reviews. He has argued before the nation's highest courts and has been counsel to detainees in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. He is also a regular commentator on legal issues before the national and local media. Dr. John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He was the School's Dean from June 2007 to January 2010, when he stepped down to pursue a bid for California Attorney General. John is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, and has served as the Director of Congressional and Public Affairs at the United States Commission on Civil Rights during the Reagan administration. He is also a regular commentator on legal issues before the national and local media. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.