Podcast appearances and mentions of Christopher J Walker

The Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases involving claims that an agency official is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, litigants can face an uphill climb to obtain meaningful relief. This state of affairs arguably has a serious impact on the incentive to bring these kinds of lawsuits going forward. This webinar will discuss the future of presidential removal power litigation in light of Collins, as well as related questions about the Court's understanding of the presidential removal power more generally and how private litigants can continue to bring these claims within the framework of Collins.Featuring:Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law CenterEli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP(Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School

This text is an excerpt from a self-help book titled "Personal Magnetism Study Guide". The book details techniques for developing one's personal magnetism through a combination of exercises and mental training. The author, Christopher J. Walker, believes that by mastering physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of self, individuals can unlock their full potential, attracting success and fulfilment in all areas of life. He explores various methods such as breathing exercises, visualisation techniques, and dietary recommendations to help readers cultivate this inner power. The book emphasizes the importance of aligning one's actions with a noble purpose, while harnessing the power of thought and emotions to create a positive and magnetic presence.

This text is an excerpt from a self-help book titled "Personal Magnetism Study Guide". The book details techniques for developing one's personal magnetism through a combination of exercises and mental training. The author, Christopher J. Walker, believes that by mastering physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of self, individuals can unlock their full potential, attracting success and fulfilment in all areas of life. He explores various methods such as breathing exercises, visualisation techniques, and dietary recommendations to help readers cultivate this inner power. The book emphasizes the importance of aligning one's actions with a noble purpose, while harnessing the power of thought and emotions to create a positive and magnetic presence.

This text is an excerpt from a self-help book titled "Personal Magnetism Study Guide". The book details techniques for developing one's personal magnetism through a combination of exercises and mental training. The author, Christopher J. Walker, believes that by mastering physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of self, individuals can unlock their full potential, attracting success and fulfilment in all areas of life. He explores various methods such as breathing exercises, visualisation techniques, and dietary recommendations to help readers cultivate this inner power. The book emphasizes the importance of aligning one's actions with a noble purpose, while harnessing the power of thought and emotions to create a positive and magnetic presence.

Qualified immunity is perhaps the nation’s most controversial legal doctrine. Proponents say qualified immunity is necessary to give government officials—especially police—breathing room to act in split-second situations without fear of lawsuits. By requiring that a right be “clearly established” before an official can be sued for violating it, the doctrine is supposed to ensure officials have notice of what conduct to avoid before they put a foot wrong. Meanwhile, critics argue that qualified immunity makes it too difficult for victims of government abuse to pursue justice and too often protects officials who have egregiously violated the Constitution, all while failing to put officials on notice. And now new Institute for Justice research finds that the doctrine shields a wide array of government officials and conduct, including premeditated First Amendment retaliation. Join us as we consider these two perspectives on qualified immunity and seek an answer to the question, “Do we need qualified immunity?”Featuring: Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School Michael Perloff, Interim Legal Director, ACLUModerator: Robert McNamara, Deputy Litigation Director, Institute for Justice

In his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed to operate, how it has met the challenges of decades past, and the trends that have contributed to increased polarization and decreased power. Having established how we got where we are, Dr. Wallach articulates three potential paths forward for Congress: continued dysfunction, increased power for the Executive branch, or a revival of the forms that ensured it will function as designed in the past.
Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!Featuring:Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of LawProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolDr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Many critics of modern administrative law want a world where Congress does more things, and the executive does less—which would lead to relative stability across administrations. Simultaneously, many also want their vote in presidential elections to have meaningful policy consequences. Between these two competing intuitions lies a tension at the heart of much contemporary political strife, which, of course, has a great deal to do with who controls Congress and who controls the White House.Featuring:Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolEli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPProf. Jed Handelsman Shugerman, Professor of Law and Joseph Lipsett Scholar, Boston University School of LawProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

In this Episode of A Hard Look, ALR Senior Technology Editor, Bennett J. Nuss interviews Professor James Ridgway about the practical effects of an ambiguous ambiguity doctrine as promulgated by Chevron, using Veteran's Law as a case example. This discussion ranges from a discussion of the history of Veterans Law, a critical examination of the motivators within administrative agencies which may contribute to ineffectiveness and court challenges, and theorizing about how iterative learning may improve agency rulemaking. This episode was produced by ALR Technology Editor Anthony Aviza. --- Recommended Reading: This Episode's TranscriptJ.B. Rule and James Salzman, Mozart and the Red Queen: The Problem of Regulatory Accretion in the Administrative State. Kent Barnett and Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts If a military veteran you know is in need of assistance, you can find Vet Centers for Readjustment Counseling as well as information regarding benefits at www.va.gov.

In his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed to operate, how it has met the challenges of decades past, and the trends that have contributed to increased polarization and decreased power. Having established how we got where we are, Dr. Wallach articulates three potential paths forward for Congress: continued dysfunction, increased power for the Executive branch, or a revival of the forms that ensured it will function as designed in the past.
Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!Featuring:Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of LawProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolDr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

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

Over the last two decades, states have played an important and increasing role in federal policymaking through state-led litigation. Unsurprisingly, a state’s Article III standing is often a hotly contested question—with increasing attention from the Supreme Court and what some might argue are scattershot results. Are states subject to traditional standing analysis, as the Court said in Biden v. Nebraska (2023)? Do they get “special solicitude,” as the Court observed in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)? Or are there concrete injuries that the Court simply will not remedy, as in United States v. Texas (2023)? Is there a common thread to the Court’s standing analysis and—more importantly—what does the original public meaning of Article III have to say about state-led litigation?Featuring:Mr. Kyle George, Principal, Kyle George Law Group; Former First Assistant Attorney General, State of NevadaMr. Eric Hamilton, Solicitor General, Nebraska Department of JusticeProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitOverflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State and the George Mason Law Review recently hosted a full-day symposium on the future of Chevron Deference. This episode of Gray Matters features a discussion among Law Professors Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker, and Thomas W. Merril about the Loper Bright case and […]

The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State and the George Mason Law Review recently hosted a full-day symposium on the future of Chevron Deference. This episode of Gray Matters features a discussion among Law Professors Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker, and Thomas W. Merril about the Loper Bright case and the future of Chevron deference, moderated by Judge Paul B. Matey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.Notes:Video of the panel discussion from the conference

This Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright offers the Court an opportunity to abandon Chevron deference entirely. But the phrasing of the Question presented in Loper Bright also presents an off-ramp for the Court, allowing it to keep Chevron's framework intact. How the Court resolves Loper Bright will have massive implications for administrative law. On this panel, three distinguished administrative law scholars discuss the task before the Court in Loper Bright and the future of Chevron deference.Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

This Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright offers the Court an opportunity to abandon Chevron deference entirely. But the phrasing of the Question presented in Loper Bright also presents an off-ramp for the Court, allowing it to keep Chevron's framework intact. How the Court resolves Loper Bright will have massive implications for administrative law. On this panel, three distinguished administrative law scholars discuss the task before the Court in Loper Bright and the future of Chevron deference.Featuring:--Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School--Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School--Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University--(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Adam White and Jace Lington talk with Josh Chafetz and Noah Rosenblum about some of the big administrative law cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. They discuss the state of the Court, where things might be headed next, and problems with conservative critiques of the Administrative State.Notes:Noah Rosenblum, What We Talk About When We Talk About the Rule of Law in the Administrative State, New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2023)Josh Chafetz, The New Judicial Power Grab, St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 67 (2023)CFPB v. CFAS, Brief of Professors of History and Constitutional Law as Amici Curiae (2023)Beau J. Baumann, Americana Administrative Law, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 111 (2023)Nikolas Bowie & Daphna Renan, The Separation-of-Powers Counterrevolution, Vol. 131, No. 7 (2022)Ashraf Ahmed, Lev Menand, Noah Rosenblum, The Tragedy of Presidential Administration, Gray Center Working Paper, 2021Josh Chafetz, Congress's Constitution (2019)Leah Litman, Debunking Antinovelty, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 66, No. 7 (2017)Kent Barnett & Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 1 (2017)Daniel R. Ernst, Tocqueville's Nightmare, Oxford University Press (2014)Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents (1991)

Recently, the application of Textualism by the Supreme Court of the United States--the predominant method of statutory interpretation that favors the plain meaning of text over legislative intent, statutory purpose, or legislative history--has given rise to rich debate as to its legitimacy, vitality, and future application. This webinar will explore and advance that debate with some of the leading minds in the field. Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School[Moderator] Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Related Links: The 2023 Scalia Lecture: Beyond Textualism?, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, 2023, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4464561Interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, 98 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4340363.

The University of Richmond chapter of the Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on "The Major Questions Doctrine, Chevron Deference & the Future of the Regulatory State" on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.Featuring:- Prof. Joel B. Eisen, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law- Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute

On January 21, 2021, The Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Columbia Student Chapter co-sponsored a webinar on "Congress and the Administrative State." In this portion of the program, Professor Christopher J. Walker gives a presentation on the proper role of Congress in modern administrative law. Featuring: Prof. Christopher J. Walker, John W. Bricker Professor of Law; Director, Washington, DC, Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In this presentation co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Columbia Student Chapter, Professor Christopher J. Walker discusses the proper the role of Congress in the modern administrative state.Featuring:- Christopher J. Walker, John W. Bricker Professor of Law; Director, Washington, DC, Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

On August 17, 2020, The Federalist Society's Chicago Lawyers Chapter hosted a virtual panel on "The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity." The panel explored the doctrine of qualified immunity that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations and its future. Should the Supreme Court declare it unlawful? Should Congress amend it? How will law enforcement react if qualified immunity is changed?Featuring: Prof. Christopher J. Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Director, Moritz Washington, D.C. Summer ProgramProf. Joanna Schwartz, Vice Dean for Faculty Development and Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawJay Schweikert, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. John F. Kness, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On August 17, 2020, The Federalist Society's Chicago Lawyers Chapter hosted a virtual panel on "The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity." The panel explored the doctrine of qualified immunity that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations and its future. Should the Supreme Court declare it unlawful? Should Congress amend it? How will law enforcement react if qualified immunity is changed?Featuring: Prof. Christopher J. Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Director, Moritz Washington, D.C. Summer ProgramProf. Joanna Schwartz, Vice Dean for Faculty Development and Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawJay Schweikert, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. John F. Kness, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

With the advent of mobile devices, ubiquitous home laptop, tablet and iPad computers, content streaming and more, the need for wireless service is forever on the rise in the United States. Industry experts note that capacity limits are being stretched. With the arrival of the "Internet of Things," linking the internet with everything from nanny cams to home/office climate systems to autonomous vehicles, is there a clear and coherent path forward on the assignment or repurposing of spectrum? Perhaps as importantly, who has the authority and expertise to decide?Featuring:- Dean Brenner, Senior Vice President, Spectrum Strategy & Technology Policy at Qualcomm- Hilary Cain, Director (Group Manager), Technology and Innovation Policy, Toyota North America- Danielle Piñeres, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA- The Internet & Television Association- [Moderator] Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

With the advent of mobile devices, ubiquitous home laptop, tablet and iPad computers, content streaming and more, the need for wireless service is forever on the rise in the United States. Industry experts note that capacity limits are being stretched. With the arrival of the "Internet of Things," linking the internet with everything from nanny cams to home/office climate systems to autonomous vehicles, is there a clear and coherent path forward on the assignment or repurposing of spectrum? Perhaps as importantly, who has the authority and expertise to decide?Featuring:- Dean Brenner, Senior Vice President, Spectrum Strategy & Technology Policy at Qualcomm- Hilary Cain, Director (Group Manager), Technology and Innovation Policy, Toyota North America- Danielle Piñeres, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA- The Internet & Television Association- [Moderator] Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The second panel covered "The Future of Administrative Deference".More and more judges, advocates, and scholars are calling on the courts to reexamine the deference paid to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations. This debate has attracted the most attention at the federal level. But the same is now occurring in state courts—including in Ohio, where just last year four justices on the Supreme Court of Ohio questioned the appropriateness of deference to agency interpretations. This distinguished panel will address these developments, make some predictions about future developments, and discuss whether those likely developments are good, bad, or neither. Featuring:Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor & Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School & Associate Director, Corporate InstituteProf. Christopher J. Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law & Director of the Moritz Washington, D.C., Summer ProgramModerator: Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Associate Justice, Ohio Supreme Court* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The second panel covered "The Future of Administrative Deference".More and more judges, advocates, and scholars are calling on the courts to reexamine the deference paid to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations. This debate has attracted the most attention at the federal level. But the same is now occurring in state courts—including in Ohio, where just last year four justices on the Supreme Court of Ohio questioned the appropriateness of deference to agency interpretations. This distinguished panel will address these developments, make some predictions about future developments, and discuss whether those likely developments are good, bad, or neither. Featuring:Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor & Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School & Associate Director, Corporate InstituteProf. Christopher J. Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law & Director of the Moritz Washington, D.C., Summer ProgramModerator: Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Associate Justice, Ohio Supreme Court* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.