Podcasts about covington burling

It's not just the MAGA or the Woke crowd. According to Greg Lukianoff, CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), free speech in America is under existential threat from all political sides. While he's long criticized campus cancel culture from the left, he now opposes Trump's coercive targeting of big law firms, media companies, and universities. The Stanford Law trained Lukianoff argues that Trump's actions—removing security clearances, barring lawyers from federal buildings, and threatening media mergers—violate constitutional principles. Five Key Takeaways * Bipartisan Authoritarianism: Lukianoff fights free speech threats from both sides—campus cancel culture from the left that he's criticized for years, and now Trump's government coercion of law firms, media, and universities from the right.* Trump's Legal Warfare: The administration is removing security clearances from lawyers who opposed Trump, barring them from federal buildings (including courthouses), and threatening media companies' business deals—unprecedented attacks on legal and press freedom.* Institutional Cowardice: Major law firms like Paul Weiss capitulated quickly, offering millions in pro bono services to Trump, while others like Covington & Burling stood firm. Media responses have been mixed, with some caving under pressure.* Free Speech is Fragile: Lukianoff argues free speech isn't humanity's default state—it requires constant defense and can easily revert to authoritarianism when not actively protected by institutions and individuals.* Technology Accelerates Crisis: Social media and AI are speeding up existing problems of polarization and institutional decay, making the current free speech crisis more acute and unpredictable than previous eras.Greg Lukianoff is an attorney, New York Times best-selling author, and the President and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). He is the author of Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, Freedom From Speech, and FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus. He co-authored The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure with Jonathan Haidt. Most recently Greg co-authored The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All—But There Is a Solution with Rikki Schlott. Greg is also an Executive Producer of Can We Take a Joke? (2015), a feature-length documentary that explores the collision between comedy, censorship, and outrage culture, both on and off campus, and of Mighty Ira: A Civil Liberties Story (2020), an award-winning feature-length film about the life and career of former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History:  Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil ServiceOn April 7, 1933, the German government enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a key early legal step in the Nazi regime's campaign to marginalize and exclude Jews and political dissenters from public life. The law targeted civil servants, stating that anyone who was not of “Aryan” descent or who held views deemed politically unreliable—especially Communists and Social Democrats—could be dismissed from government service. While phrased in bureaucratic language, the law was a thinly veiled act of political and racial purging. Jewish teachers, professors, judges, and other state employees were removed from their posts, some having served Germany for decades, including veterans of World War I.The law also gave the regime a tool to begin shaping state institutions along Nazi ideological lines. Its vague language about “unreliability” gave officials wide discretion to remove not only Jews but anyone who opposed the Nazis or failed to show sufficient loyalty. Although certain Jewish individuals were temporarily exempted under a “front-line fighter” clause—meant to placate concerns about fairness—the loophole would soon be closed in later legislation.This marked the first legal codification of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, providing a model for further exclusionary laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. It also demonstrated how laws could be used not only to formalize discrimination but to normalize it, embedding it into the everyday machinery of the state. By disguising oppression as administrative reform, the Nazi government laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic system of persecution that would escalate into far more violent phases in the years to come.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's highest-grossing law firm, is in negotiations with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by an executive order similar to those issued against several of its competitors. The firm reportedly reached out to the White House proactively, hoping to strike a deal that would spare it from the penalties imposed on others—such as revoking security clearances, limiting federal access, or canceling client contracts.Other cowardly firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Milbank have already secured deals involving multimillion-dollar pledges for pro bono legal work aligned with White House priorities. These agreements also include commitments to avoid discriminatory diversity practices and to recruit ideologically diverse attorneys. Kirkland, though not yet the subject of an executive order, is one of 20 firms under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scrutiny following Trump's directives.In 2024, Kirkland earned nearly $9 billion, with its lawyers playing key roles in major private equity and M&A deals, topping Bloomberg Law's transactional rankings. The firm's aggressive style and market dominance have made it a heavyweight in the legal world, and this move signals its intent to shield its interests amid the Trump administration's ongoing pressure campaign against firms seen as politically opposed.$9 billion in earnings is, apparently, not enough to buy a spine. Kirkland Talks Deal With Trump White House, Looks to Avoid OrderMore than 500 law firms have signed onto a court brief supporting Perkins Coie in its legal challenge against a Trump executive order that penalizes the firm over past political work and diversity policies. The brief, filed with U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, criticizes what it describes as a dangerous effort to intimidate the legal profession, warning that legal representation of disfavored causes may now provoke government retaliation. Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on March 11, following Trump's order targeting the firm for its past representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign and its internal diversity policies. Several firms targeted by similar orders—such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling—have either sued or signed the brief. Others, including once again the aforementioned Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, reached deals with Trump to avoid formal action.Judge Howell has already blocked parts of Trump's order, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to the legal system's foundations. The White House maintains the orders are lawful exercises of presidential authority. The brief was spearheaded by former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who now practices at Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of several prominent firms suing the administration over related matters. Many top law firms have stayed silent, but the growing backlash reflects broad concern about the use of presidential power to retaliate against legal opposition. Critics say the executive orders weaponize the law to chill dissent and undercut core legal protections.More than 500 law firms back Perkins Coie suit against punitive Trump order | ReutersA U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been placed on administrative leave after failing to defend the government's actions in a wrongful deportation case that a federal judge described as “wholly lawless.” The case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran migrant with a valid work permit, who was mistakenly deported despite a court order blocking his removal. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that he be returned to Maryland and found no legal basis for his arrest, detention, or deportation, noting he had complied with all immigration requirements and had no criminal record.At a recent hearing, DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni struggled to explain the deportation and admitted he lacked evidence justifying the government's actions. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that Reuveni and his supervisor August Flentje have been sidelined from the case. The administration is appealing the order but has acknowledged in court filings that Abrego Garcia's deportation was a mistake.The deported man is now being held in a high-risk prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration has justified its actions by claiming gang affiliations, though there are no charges against Abrego Garcia. The case highlights broader concerns about due process and immigration enforcement under the current administration, with critics pointing to a pattern of ignoring legal protections in deportation proceedings.US sidelines DOJ lawyer involved in deportation case, which judge calls 'wholly lawless' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: National Referendum on ApartheidOn March 17, 1992, South Africa took a decisive step toward dismantling apartheid through a historic national referendum. White South African voters were asked whether they supported the government's efforts to end apartheid and negotiate a new, democratic constitution. An overwhelming 68.7% voted in favor, signaling broad support for ending over four decades of racial segregation. This referendum provided then-President F.W. de Klerk with the political mandate to continue negotiations with the African National Congress (ANC) and other groups. The result was a major victory for the anti-apartheid movement, which had long fought against the country's system of institutionalized racial oppression.The referendum was limited to white voters, who had historically benefited from apartheid, making their approval a crucial moment in South African history. It paved the way for the country's first multiracial elections in 1994, in which Nelson Mandela was elected president. With this, South Africa officially transitioned from an apartheid state to a democracy, enshrining equal rights for all citizens. The vote also marked the beginning of legal reforms that led to the adoption of a new constitution in 1996. While the end of apartheid did not immediately erase economic and social inequalities, the referendum remains a defining moment in the country's legal and political history. It demonstrated that legal systems, even when designed to uphold injustice, can be reformed through democratic means.A federal judge ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) must reinstate probationary employees it had recently terminated. As a result, the agency is bringing back those workers, along with most term employees, and providing them with back pay. However, term employees with more than two years of service were not reinstated. The CFPB had initially fired 70 enforcement attorneys and up to 100 other employees after acting Director Russell Vought took over in February. The judge's decision is part of a broader legal battle over federal workforce reductions, with similar rulings affecting multiple agencies. Despite this setback, the Trump administration remains committed to deep staffing cuts across federal agencies, with reduction plans already submitted to the Office of Personnel Management. The firings had faced opposition from the National Treasury Employees Union, which reached an agreement with the CFPB to pause additional terminations while another court considers an injunction. The reinstatement process has been messy, with workers unsure of their status and vendor contracts disrupted. However, legally mandated CFPB functions, such as consumer response, are being prioritized for restoration.CFPB Brings Back Probationary Employees After Judge's RulingTrump has escalated his attacks on major law firms, this time targeting Paul Weiss, a firm known for representing top financial institutions and engaging in high-profile pro bono work. His executive order directs federal agencies to cut ties with companies that are Paul Weiss clients and suspend the firm's lawyers' security clearances. The move follows similar actions against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. Paul Weiss has deep ties to Wall Street, with clients including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Global Management. Some of these corporate leaders have criticized Trump's tariff policies, potentially influencing his decision to go after the firm.Trump's order highlights Paul Weiss's past work, including its involvement in a lawsuit against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers over the January 6 Capitol riot. The firm has a long history of civil rights advocacy, from Brown v. Board of Education to LGBTQ+ and voting rights cases. Critics argue Trump's actions are politically motivated, targeting firms with Democratic connections while ignoring their bipartisan donor base. A federal judge previously blocked a similar order against Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss is expected to mount a strong legal challenge. However, even if the order is overturned, the chilling effect is real—firms risk losing business from clients wary of crossing Trump. Some industry experts believe this could push law firms to unite against political interference, but whether collective action emerges remains uncertain.Trump Fights Paul Weiss as Wall Street Seeks President's EarTrump targets law firm Paul Weiss in order restricting government access | ReutersThe Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelan migrants despite a federal judge's order blocking the move. The deportations targeted alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, whom the administration labeled as “terrorists.” The White House dismissed the court's authority, arguing that a single judge could not override the president's powers on immigration and national security. Judge James Boasberg had ruled that Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations was unlawful, as the law applies only to conflicts “commensurate to war.” Despite this, flights carrying the migrants landed in El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele publicly mocked the judge's ruling and confirmed the men were being imprisoned.Legal experts, including the ACLU, argue the administration is in open defiance of the court and may have violated constitutional checks and balances. The White House claimed that some migrants had already been deported before the judge's order, but it remains unclear if others were removed afterward. Critics see this as an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority, while Trump defended the deportations, calling the migrants "bad people" and insisting the situation amounted to war. The legal battle over these actions is expected to continue, with calls for the U.S. government to reverse any unlawful removals.Trump administration deports Venezuelans despite court order, says judge has no authorityThe White House is taking an unprecedented role in overseeing the sale of TikTok's U.S. operations, with Vice President JD Vance leading the process. Instead of a traditional investment bank managing the auction, Vance's legal team is directly engaging with bidders and advising on their offers. President Trump has emphasized his control over the sale, claiming multiple groups are interested, while also suggesting the U.S. government could take a 50% stake in TikTok's American assets.The sale process is highly unusual, lacking a defined valuation or clear asset structure, and ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, has shown minimal engagement. Potential buyers, including investors like Frank McCourt and Kevin O'Leary, face an April 5 deadline to reach a deal. However, Beijing's involvement and the possibility that ByteDance could simply shut down TikTok in the U.S. add further uncertainty.While the U.S. government has previously intervened in corporate deals for national security or economic stability reasons, experts question whether TikTok meets such criteria. Trump, who initially sought to ban TikTok, has since acknowledged its role in helping him gain young voters. The app's sale price remains uncertain, largely depending on whether its valuable recommendation algorithm is included. With intense competition among bidders and political interests shaping the process, the outcome remains unpredictable.The White House's unusual role as dealmaker in TikTok sale | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this weekend, I lay out what I reckon is the Trump administration's plan to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. The Trump administration's proposal to eliminate taxes for individuals earning under $150,000 sounds appealing at first but carries severe consequences. Social Security and Medicare rely heavily on payroll taxes, which most workers in this income range pay more than income taxes. If these taxes are removed, the programs will be starved of funding, leading to either massive deficit spending, extreme benefit cuts, or a shift to regressive taxes like sales taxes. The proposal, combined with extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), would disproportionately benefit the wealthy while leaving the middle class to shoulder the remaining tax burden. The TCJA already made corporate tax cuts permanent while setting individual cuts to expire by 2025, favoring the rich. If this new plan moves forward, those earning just above $150,000 could become the last major tax-paying bracket, while state and local taxes would likely rise to compensate. The ultra-wealthy, who benefited the most from previous tax cuts, are unlikely to pick up the slack. Rather than a tax break for workers, the proposal appears to be a backdoor attempt to dismantle entitlement programs. If no one is paying in, no one gets benefits out—a reality Trump's allies don't want to admit.Trump Administration's No Taxes Under $150k Proposal Is A Disaster This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he breaks down today's biggest stories shaping America and the world in Friday's Headline Brief—heavy on news, light on analysis. Trump Asks Supreme Court to Reinstate Birthright Citizenship Order – The White House pushes for "right of blood" citizenship, requiring at least one U.S. citizen or legal resident parent. Venezuela Resumes Deportation Flights – The Maduro regime agrees to restart removals, but the deal's full details remain unclear. Meanwhile, Guantánamo Bay will no longer be used for migrant detention. Trump to Deliver Speech on Democrat Lawfare and DOJ Corruption – The president plans to outline how his administration is investigating political weaponization under Biden. Trump Revokes Security Clearances for Democrat-Linked Law Firms – Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling lose access to classified information; legal battles begin over claims of political retribution. Government Shutdown Drama: On Again, Off Again – Senate Democrats waver on the funding bill, leading to uncertainty ahead of tonight's deadline. U.S. Deficit Hits $1.1 Trillion in Just Five Months – Spending continues to soar, with entitlement programs driving the bulk of new expenditures. Trump's Tariff Impact: Automakers and Retailers Adapt – BMW, Volkswagen, and Chrysler shift production, while U.S. clothing brands race to rebuild domestic supply chains. Trump Plans Military-Controlled Mineral Refineries – New facilities may be built on Pentagon land to counter China's dominance in mineral refining. Chinese Hackers Target U.S. Small-Town Utilities – A Massachusetts power grid infiltration highlights Beijing's strategy to disrupt American infrastructure. Trump Moves to Revive U.S. Coal Plants – The Energy Secretary outlines plans to increase energy reliability through coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. East Coast Faces Higher Energy Costs Due to Blocked Pipelines – New York and New England struggle as pipeline companies abandon projects over regulatory roadblocks. Universities Crack Down on Antisemitism Amid Federal Grant Cuts – Harvard, Yale, and others take action after Trump's DOE begins withholding millions in funding. Judge Orders Trump to Reinstate Fired Federal Workers – A Clinton-appointed judge rules that probationary firings must be reversed, setting up another legal battle. Trump Eyes Taking Control of the Panama Canal – The U.S. military prepares options amid concerns over Chinese influence and national security. Putin Responds to Trump's Ukraine Peace Proposal – The Russian president signals cautious interest but demands more negotiations. Europe Struggles to Rebuild Its Military – Spain resists NATO spending requirements, while Germany faces a military readiness crisis. Medical Breakthroughs: Aspirin's Role in Cancer Treatment – UK researchers discover how aspirin may help the immune system fight metastatic cancer. New Findings on Concussions and Sleep – Scientists uncover the best sleep patterns for concussion recovery in young athletes. Melatonin May Protect Against DNA Damage from Night Shifts – British researchers suggest supplementation could help mitigate long-term health risks. Get the facts, the analysis, and the truth—only on The Wright Report. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32

This Day in Legal History: Bloody SundayOn March 7, 1965, a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement unfolded in Selma, Alabama. A group of 525 peaceful demonstrators, led by activists like John Lewis and Hosea Williams, began a march to Montgomery to demand voting rights for Black Americans. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were met by Alabama state troopers and local law enforcement, who brutally attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas. The violent crackdown, later known as "Bloody Sunday," left at least 65 people injured and shocked the nation. Television broadcasts of the assault galvanized public support for civil rights, prompting federal intervention. After securing court protection, a second attempt on March 9, led by Martin Luther King Jr., was turned around peacefully to avoid further violence. Finally, under federal protection, thousands of marchers resumed the journey on March 21, arriving in Montgomery on March 25 with 25,000 people. The march directly contributed to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. "Bloody Sunday" remains a defining moment in the struggle for racial justice in America, symbolizing both the brutality of oppression and the power of collective resistance.President Donald Trump issued an executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP, citing the firm's role in commissioning the Steele dossier during the 2016 election and its diversity hiring practices. The order suspends security clearances for Perkins Coie employees and directs federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm and its business partners. It also instructs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Justice Department to investigate racial discrimination policies at major law firms, referencing Perkins Coie's past use of racial hiring quotas. The directive extends to restricting Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and limiting their engagement with government officials.Trump's move comes after similar actions against Covington & Burling for its representation of former special counsel Jack Smith. The executive order frames Perkins Coie as a national security risk, linking its past election law litigation to alleged threats against democratic integrity. It also mandates that federal contractors disclose business ties to the firm, aiming to cut off government funds to entities associated with it. The order's broader scope signals heightened scrutiny of “Big Law” firms, especially those engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Trump's administration has pushed back against race-conscious hiring practices, aligning the order with prior efforts to dismantle DEI policies in education and employment.Perkins Coie, a longtime legal adviser to Democrats, denounced the order as unlawful and vowed to challenge it. The firm has been at the center of Republican criticism over election-related litigation and its former attorneys' ties to Democratic campaigns. The administration's focus on law firms suggests a broader effort to reshape the legal industry's relationship with the federal government.Trump Targets Law Firms Over Steele Dossier, Diversity Moves (1)A federal judge reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), ruling that former President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire her. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found Trump's dismissal of Wilcox violated legal protections for independent agency members, emphasizing that the president's removal powers are not absolute. Howell's decision strongly reaffirmed Humphrey's Executor v. United States(1935), which upheld restrictions on presidential firings of independent agency officials.The ruling restores the NLRB's quorum, allowing it to issue decisions again, but the Trump administration immediately appealed, seeking to block Wilcox's return. Howell's opinion included a sharp rebuke of Trump's attempts to assert unchecked presidential authority, stating, “An American President is not a king.” She pointed to longstanding legal precedent that limits the president's power to remove officials from multi-member independent agencies, dating back to the Interstate Commerce Commission's creation in 1887.Trump's legal team argued that Wilcox's firing was justified under the Supreme Court's 2020 Seila Law v. CFPB decision, which expanded presidential removal power over single-agency heads. However, Howell rejected this claim, noting that NLRB members' powers resemble those of the Federal Trade Commission members protected under Humphrey's Executor. The ruling marks the third time a court has reversed Trump's firings of agency officials, signaling a broader legal battle over executive authority that may reach the Supreme Court. Wilcox's attorney praised the decision as a victory for the independence of federal agencies, while the Justice Department has not yet commented.Fired NLRB Member Reinstated in Decision Nixing Trump Move (4)A coalition of 20 Democrat-led states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, has sued the Trump administration over mass firings of federal workers. Filed in a Maryland federal court, the lawsuit argues that President Donald Trump illegally dismissed tens of thousands of employees without proper notice or justification. The states seek to reinstate the workers and block further terminations.Trump's efforts to shrink the federal workforce have already faced legal pushback. A judge recently reinstated a National Labor Relations Board member fired by Trump, and another court temporarily halted the administration's directive to fire new hires en masse. Additionally, a federal workforce board reinstated thousands of employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk have framed the firings as part of a campaign to eliminate government inefficiency and waste. However, critics, including the states in this lawsuit, argue that the dismissals violate labor laws and undermine public service. The case adds to mounting legal challenges against Trump's sweeping efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy.Democrat-led states join legal fight over Trump's mass firings of federal workers | ReutersThe Trump administration is planning to shut down nearly a dozen U.S. diplomatic missions, primarily in Western Europe, as part of a broader effort to reduce government spending and reshape foreign policy. The State Department is also considering merging several Washington-based expert bureaus focused on human rights, refugees, and global criminal justice. Additionally, U.S. embassies worldwide have been instructed to cut at least 10% of their American and locally employed staff.The proposed closures include consulates in Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, and Portugal, though officials say some locations may be spared. The administration argues these cuts align with Trump's “America First” agenda and his campaign promise to reduce the so-called "deep state." Critics warn that reducing the U.S. diplomatic presence, along with cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), could weaken American global influence and create openings for adversaries like China and Russia.Congress has been notified of the plan to close the U.S. consulate in Gaziantep, Turkey, a key hub for Syrian humanitarian aid. In Washington, dozens of State Department contractors have been terminated, including those handling Afghan refugee resettlement. Diplomats working on Asian affairs have been asked to justify their missions' alignment with Trump's policies. The administration's deep cuts to foreign aid and staffing have already resulted in thousands of USAID workers being laid off and billions in humanitarian aid being eliminated.Trump administration weighs closure of nearly a dozen diplomatic missions abroad | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Maurice Ravel.Our theme is Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel, a composer known for his shimmering orchestration and masterful blend of classical form with modern harmonies. Born on March 7, 1875, Ravel was a key figure in early 20th-century music, often associated with Impressionism, though he resisted the label. His Piano Concerto in G, composed between 1929 and 1931, reflects his fascination with jazz, which he encountered during a trip to the United States. The first movement, Allegramente, is bright and rhythmic, opening with a whip-crack that sets the tone for its energy and playfulness. Ravel weaves in blues-inspired harmonies, rapid piano flourishes, and sparkling orchestral textures, creating a piece that feels both spontaneous and carefully crafted. Despite its liveliness, the movement is meticulously structured, showcasing Ravel's precision and attention to detail. The concerto as a whole balances virtuosic brilliance with lyricism, particularly in the dreamy second movement. Ravel himself admitted he aimed for a work that was “light and brilliant,” rather than deep or profound. Yet, in its elegance and wit, the concerto captures the vibrancy of early 20th-century musical innovation. As the spirited Allegramente unfolds, it serves as a fitting farewell to the week—playful, energetic, and bursting with color.Without further ado, Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Signs Grand Canyon National Park ActOn February 26, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Grand Canyon National Park Act, officially designating the Grand Canyon as a national park. This landmark decision aimed to preserve the canyon's breathtaking landscapes, unique geological formations, and rich biodiversity for future generations. Prior to its national park status, the Grand Canyon had been a federally protected reserve, but conservationists pushed for stronger protections. The designation marked a significant victory for the early environmental movement, ensuring that the canyon would be safeguarded from mining, logging, and other commercial exploitation.The Grand Canyon, carved over millions of years by the Colorado River, is one of the world's most iconic natural wonders. Its layered rock formations offer a window into Earth's geological history, dating back nearly two billion years. Beyond its scientific significance, the canyon holds deep cultural importance for Indigenous tribes, including the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo, who have lived in and around the area for centuries. The national park designation helped protect these cultural and historical sites, though it also led to conflicts over land rights.The creation of Grand Canyon National Park was part of a broader movement in the early 20th century to protect America's natural landscapes. This movement, championed by figures like President Theodore Roosevelt, laid the foundation for the modern National Park System. Today, Grand Canyon National Park attracts millions of visitors annually, serving as a testament to the enduring importance of conservation efforts.President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of security clearances and government contracts for the law firm Covington & Burling due to its legal assistance to special counsel Jack Smith. In a memo signed in the Oval Office, Trump accused law firms of using pro bono work to obstruct the government. The directive specifically targets Peter Koski, a Covington partner, and calls for a review of the firm's federal contracts.  Smith recently disclosed that Covington provided him with $140,000 in pro bono legal services as he faces government scrutiny. Covington stated that it represents Smith in a personal capacity and will continue to defend his interests. Legal experts note that security clearances are crucial for private attorneys handling national security matters.  Trump, who has been indicted in two cases led by Smith, referred to the order as the "Deranged Jack Smith signing" and mocked the prosecutor after signing the memo.Trump Targets Covington Security, Contracts Over Work With SmithThe U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, ruling that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional rights. In a rare win for a capital defendant, two conservative justices joined the court's three liberals to overturn Glossip's conviction. Oklahoma's Republican attorney general had also acknowledged errors in the case, including prosecutors withholding evidence and failing to correct false testimony.  Glossip was convicted for allegedly orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, though the actual killer, Justin Sneed, was the state's key witness. Newly disclosed documents revealed that Sneed had considered recanting, was coached by prosecutors, and lied about his mental health history. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that correcting Sneed's false testimony would have significantly damaged his credibility.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the ruling, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially agreed but wanted the state court to decide if a new trial was warranted. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the case should have been left to Oklahoma courts. Glossip's execution had been blocked nine times before, and his attorney emphasized the ruling as a crucial step toward justice. It remains uncertain whether Oklahoma will retry the case or pursue the death penalty again.Justices Order New Trial in Rare Win for Death Row Inmate (2)A U.S. judge has extended an order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing a sweeping freeze on federal funding, citing concerns that the policy could be reinstated. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that despite the administration's withdrawal of an initial memo pausing grants and loans, statements from White House officials suggested the freeze was still in effect.  The funding pause, announced in January, aimed to review federal financial assistance programs for compliance with Trump's executive orders, including those ending diversity initiatives and pausing climate-related projects. Nonprofits and small business groups sued, arguing the freeze would cause widespread harm.  AliKhan criticized the policy as legally baseless and impractical, saying it would either halt up to $3 trillion in spending overnight or force agencies to review all grants within a day. She called the administration's actions “irrational” and warned of a potential national crisis. The ruling prevents the government from reimposing the freeze under a different name, marking a legal setback for Trump's efforts to reshape federal spending priorities.Trump blocked from imposing sweeping federal funding freeze | ReutersIn my weekly Bloomberg Tax column, I examine Washington State's new data broker tax, a well-intended but ultimately insufficient approach to curbing exploitative data practices. The legislation treats consumer data like a natural resource, imposing a severance tax on its collection. However, this framework fails to address the real issue: long-term data retention and reuse.  A more effective solution would be a retention tax, which would discourage firms from hoarding personal data indefinitely. Under the current bill, companies pay a tiered tax based on the number of residents whose data they collect. While this sounds like a fair approach, it risks consolidating data power in the hands of large platforms that can absorb the tax and continue selling consumer information without restriction. Worse, the tax may encourage firms to store data longer, giving it an artificial market value that promotes hoarding rather than limiting collection.  Unlike oil or minerals, personal data is not depleted upon use—it can be endlessly repackaged and resold. A retention tax would align economic incentives with privacy concerns, forcing firms to justify prolonged data storage and pay accordingly. Without it, Washington's proposal does little to curb long-term privacy risks and may ultimately entrench the very data exploitation it seeks to prevent.Washington's Data Broker Tax Is a Promising but Inadequate Move This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the field of legal knowledge management and innovation, Sally Gonzalez is both a legend and a trailblazer. Over the course of her 40-year career, she has worked for some of the world's largest law firms to develop and lead KM and strategic technology initiatives. She has overseen KM and information technology programs at such global firms as Norton Rose Fulbright, Dentons, Akin Gump, Covington & Burling, and Jones Day, and been a strategic consultant at major consulting firms including HBR, Navigant, PwC and, most recently, Fireman & Company,  Gonzalez surprised some of those who attended the Knowledge Management and Innovation for Legal Conference held in New York City in October, where she was the keynote speaker, when she announced her retirement there and was recognized by her peers for her decades of contributions to the legal industry. That made her keynote, in which she spoke about core principles for successful KM, her swan song, of sorts.  Following her keynote, LawNext host Bob Ambrogi, who was at the conference, sat down with Gonzalez to record this conversation about her thoughts on KM, innovation, AI, culture, change management, and much more.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). Littler, local everywhere.  Steno, reliable court reporting with a revolutionary approach   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

This Day in Legal History: William Rehnquist BornOn October 1, 1924, William Hubbs Rehnquist, the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Nixon, Rehnquist became a polarizing figure, known for his staunch conservatism and originalist approach to the Constitution. His judicial philosophy often focused on restricting federal authority and bolstering states' rights, positions that critics argued rolled back civil rights protections and hindered federal progress on social justice issues. In 1986, President Reagan elevated Rehnquist to Chief Justice, a decision that pushed the Court further right. At his swearing-in, Reagan hailed him as a defender of constitutional values, but opponents viewed his appointment as the solidification of an increasingly reactionary judiciary. The same ceremony saw Antonin Scalia, another conservative, sworn in, signaling a shift that would influence rulings on affirmative action, voting rights, and church-state separation.Rehnquist's tenure included controversial rulings, notably his role in Bush v. Gore (2000), which critics argue undermined democratic principles by halting the Florida recount and effectively deciding a presidential election. His leadership on the Court was also marked by decisions that curtailed congressional power under the Commerce Clause, weakening federal authority in areas like civil rights and environmental regulation. While his supporters celebrated him as a guardian of limited government, his legacy remains contentious, with lasting impacts on the Court's direction and the balance between federal and state power.A fun Rehnquist fact is that you'll see in any official pictures or portraits of him as Chief Justice, his sleeves have yellow arm bands. Rehnquist insisted on adding four gold stripes on each sleeve to distinguish himself from the associate justices. He was inspired by the costume of the Lord Chancellor in a production of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera Iolanthe. Rehnquist's addition of the stripes was an unusual departure from the traditional plain black robes worn by justices, and it became a symbol of his unique approach to the role.New York Mayor Eric Adams has brought on three high-profile litigators as he faces federal criminal charges. William Burck, a former George W. Bush White House lawyer and current Fox Corp. board member, is one of the lawyers advising Adams. Burck, known for representing figures like Stephen Bannon and Don McGahn, joins Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partners John Bash III and Avi Perry on Adams' defense team. Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel with experience defending high-profile clients like Elon Musk, is leading the defense. The charges involve allegations that Adams accepted lavish travel perks and had improper ties to the Turkish government. Adams has denied wrongdoing and vowed to continue as mayor while fighting the charges. His legal team has requested the case's dismissal.Meanwhile, a legal defense fund for Adams has paid over $877,000 to law firm WilmerHale, and several staffers have left his administration amid ongoing investigations. Additionally, Theresa Hassler was recently appointed general counsel for the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City, a nonprofit under scrutiny for its fundraising practices.Ex-Bannon Lawyer With Fox News Ties Joins NYC Mayor Defense TeamToday, on October 1, 2024, a Georgia judge will hear a challenge from Democrats against new election rules introduced by the Republican-led Georgia Election Board. These rules, approved in August, allow county officials to investigate discrepancies in vote counts and scrutinize election-related documents before certifying results. Democrats argue that these changes, which came just before the November 5 election, are designed to erode trust in the process and could delay certification. The rules were backed by three board members who are allies of Donald Trump, who continues to challenge his 2020 loss in Georgia. Trump has praised these board members for their efforts to increase election security, though critics, including Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, say the changes could undermine voter confidence and strain election workers.A separate lawsuit was also filed to block a new requirement for a hand count of ballots. Democrats contend that these rules create confusion and provide too much leeway for local officials to investigate alleged fraud, potentially delaying results. The trial in Fulton County Superior Court is part of a broader national focus on battleground states like Georgia, where both Republicans and Democrats are intensely focused ahead of the upcoming presidential election.Challenge by US Democrats to Georgia election rules goes to trial | ReutersAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, more U.S. law firms are appointing executives to lead AI initiatives. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and McDermott Will & Emery both announced new AI leadership hires, with Akin appointing Jeff Westcott as director of practice technology and AI innovation, and McDermott hiring Christopher Cyrus as director of AI innovation. These moves reflect the growing belief that AI will have a permanent role in the legal profession, particularly in areas like research, drafting legal documents, and reducing administrative tasks.Law firms are responding to client expectations and the surge in AI technologies, which have expanded dramatically in the past two years. Other firms, such as Covington & Burling, Latham & Watkins, and Reed Smith, have similarly created AI and data science roles since the rise of tools like ChatGPT. Westcott will focus on how Akin Gump can strategically invest in AI technology, assessing whether to develop tools in-house, purchase products, or partner with vendors.Additionally, legal AI startup Harvey's chief strategy officer, Gordon Moodie, transitioned to Debevoise & Plimpton as a partner specializing in mergers and acquisitions. These developments underscore the legal industry's growing focus on AI integration as firms aim to remain competitive and adapt to technological advances.More US law firms turn to executives for AI leadership roles | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Over the last few years, the United States has led the world in the fight against climate change by passing some of the most impactful and largest investments in infrastructure and related regulatory reforms ever. Together, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law seek to deploy nearly $1 trillion in climate positive infrastructure investment over the next decade. At the same time, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that together significantly curtail the authority of executive agencies charged with implementing and defending legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. In its most recent term, the Court issued four such decisions including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturns a 40-year precedent and ensures the courts will have a commanding voice over climate policy and regulation for the foreseeable future.In this episode, Chad Reed unpacks the details and implications of Loper Bright and related Court decisions with Kevin Poloncarz, a partner with Covington & Burling and one of the top climate change attorneys in the United States. Links:Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies (SCOTUSblog, July 2024)CleanLaw – Suite of Supreme Court Decisions Undermine Administrative LawPalmaz VineyardsEpisode recorded September 12, 2024 Email your feedback to Chad, Gil, and Hilary at climatepositive@hasi.com or tweet them to @ClimatePosiPod.

This Day in Legal History: Flag Statutes in Public SchoolsOn this day in legal history, June 14, 1943, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, profoundly impacting the rights of individuals in public schools. The case arose when Jehovah's Witnesses challenged a West Virginia mandate requiring students to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, actions contrary to their religious convictions. The Court ruled that forcing students to participate in patriotic rituals violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the majority, asserted that compelling students to salute the flag was a form of coerced speech that infringed upon their individual liberties. The decision overturned the 1940 ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, which had upheld mandatory flag salutes. Jackson famously stated, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official... can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."This ruling reinforced the principle that the government cannot force individuals to express beliefs they do not hold. It underscored the protection of individual freedoms against state-imposed conformity, significantly shaping the interpretation of First Amendment rights in the educational context. The Barnette decision remains a cornerstone in American constitutional law, symbolizing the enduring protection of individual liberties in the face of governmental authority.Large national law firms are increasingly establishing offices in Boston, potentially overshadowing local firms that have operated regionally for decades. This year, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Paul Hastings, and Blank Rome announced new Boston offices, while Covington & Burling, Arnold & Porter, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld did so last year. In a notable move, Goodwin Procter recently recruited a five-partner tech and life sciences team from Cooley in Boston, signaling a consolidation trend in legal services within these sectors. The health and energy industries have remained strong in a sluggish deals market, bolstered by the financial strength of health care giants and incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.The number of law firm openings in Boston has surged over the past decade, with over 40 firms establishing a presence since 2016. This influx includes regulatory-focused firms like Covington and UK-based Magic Circle firms such as Allen & Overy. As large firms move in, regional firms face the risk of losing talent and clients.Despite these developments, the efforts of new Big Law entrants in Boston remain in their early stages, with firms like Simpson Thacher planning deliberate growth to tap into the city's talent pool.Big Law Firms Eye Boston to Tap Hot Tech, Health Care MarketsThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has three new commissioners, which could influence the review process for natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Industry advocates argue these projects are essential to meet rising electricity demand, while environmental groups push for rejection due to the long-term climate impacts of fossil fuels. The newly confirmed commissioners—Democrats David Rosner and Judy Chang, and Republican Lindsay See—join FERC at a critical time. With Commissioner Allison Clements' upcoming departure, FERC will regain a 3-2 Democratic majority for the first time in 18 months.Historically, FERC's decisions on natural gas have been contentious, with a 2022 policy to scrutinize gas projects leading to the end of former Chairman Richard Glick's tenure. The new commissioners have indicated a focus on gas infrastructure, despite past environmental concerns. Chang, for example, moderated her previous stance against new gas pipelines during her confirmation hearing.FERC's decisions are crucial amid growing electricity demands, driven by factors like artificial intelligence and increased manufacturing. Natural gas consumption is at record highs, and new power generation, particularly from gas, is necessary to meet future needs. However, permitting reviews and litigation have slowed the expansion of pipeline capacity. Industry experts stress the need for regulatory certainty to align infrastructure with demand, a sentiment echoed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. The new FERC commissioners face the challenge of balancing these competing interests as they begin their terms.Divisive Gas Reviews Pose Early Test for New FERC CommissionersOn June 13, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee advanced bipartisan legislation to create 66 new judgeships in federal district courts across states like California, Delaware, and Texas. This marks the first major judiciary expansion in over three decades. The committee's unanimous 20-0 vote moves the JUDGES Act to the full Senate for consideration. If enacted, it will be the first comprehensive authorization of new judges since 1990, addressing longstanding requests to manage rising caseloads in 25 district courts nationwide.The last time new judgeships were created was in 2003, but efforts to expand the federal bench have since stalled due to partisan concerns. The current bill mitigates these concerns by incrementally adding the new judicial seats over ten years, starting in January 2025, after the 2024 presidential election. This phased approach aims to prevent any single party or president from gaining an advantage.Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a co-sponsor of the bill, emphasized the urgency of expanding the federal bench to address the growing backlog of court filings since 1990. The JUDGES Act aligns with recommendations from the Judicial Conference, seeking to add judges in districts facing a "genuine crisis of workload."U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad expressed the judiciary's appreciation for the Senate's efforts. The judiciary currently has 677 authorized district court seats and 10 temporary ones, which another Senate-passed bill aims to make permanent.Initially opposed to adding more judges, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley supported the bill after amendments spread the additions over time. The JUDGES Act now plans to introduce the 66 new judgeships in five stages through 2035, with three temporary judgeships in Oklahoma.A companion bill is pending in the Republican-led House of Representatives, backed by Representative Darrell Issa, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's panel on courts.US Senate panel advances bipartisan bill to create new judgeships | ReutersThe proposed $30 billion antitrust settlement between Visa and Mastercard to limit credit and debit card fees for merchants is in jeopardy. U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie in Brooklyn indicated she is likely to reject the settlement, citing her intent to write an opinion detailing her decision. Both Visa and Mastercard expressed disappointment, describing the settlement as a fair and appropriate resolution to the nearly 19-year-old litigation.Announced on March 26, the settlement aimed to address most claims from nationwide litigation, with small businesses making up over 90% of the settling merchants. Businesses have long argued that Visa and Mastercard's swipe fees, which totaled $172 billion in 2023, are excessive and that the card networks illegally prevent them from steering customers to cheaper payment methods. The settlement proposed reducing swipe fees by at least 0.04 percentage points for three years, capping rates for five years, and removing anti-steering provisions.However, objectors, including the National Retail Federation, criticized the settlement as insufficient, arguing that it would still allow Visa and Mastercard to control swipe fees and prevent future claims by merchants. The case, known as In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.Visa, Mastercard $30 billion fee settlement in peril | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by John David Davis.John David Davis (22 October 1867 – 20 November 1942), often known as J. D. Davis, was an English composer born in Edgbaston, near Birmingham. Although he was born into a musical family, Davis was initially sent to Frankfurt to prepare for a commercial career. However, his passion for music led him to study under Hans von Bülow. Davis completed his education in Germany before furthering his studies in Brussels with Léopold Wallner, Arthur De Greef, and Maurice Kufferath.Upon returning to Birmingham in 1889, Davis began teaching music, notably at the Birmingham and Midland Institute from 1893 to 1904. In 1905, he joined the Guildhall School of Music as a professor of harmony and composition and also served as Professor of Solfège at the International Conservatoire in London.In 1919, Davis married Helen Winifred Juta, the daughter of South African judge Henry Juta. The couple lived in Earls Court, London, before moving to Lisbon in 1936. Davis passed away in Estoril, Portugal, in 1942, and his wife later returned to South Africa, where she died in 1952.This week's closing theme is John David Davis' evocative piece, "Summer's Eve at Cookham Lock, Op. 50." Composed in 1916 for the London String Quartet, this work captures the serene beauty of a summer evening at Cookham Lock. Known for its lyrical quality and gentle atmosphere, "Summer's Eve at Cookham Lock" offers a tranquil auditory experience.The piece, also known as an Idyl for string quartet, demonstrates Davis' ability to paint a vivid picture through music. Its delicate melodies and harmonies reflect the calm and reflective mood of a summer evening by the water. This composition stands as a testament to Davis' skill in creating evocative and picturesque musical landscapes, making it a fitting and soothing choice for this week's closing theme. Enjoy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Every year we bring you coverage of the ‘Conference of the Parties,' or COP, the annual UN summit that convenes world leaders to work together on solutions to tackle climate change. This year's conference, COP28, takes place in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates starting Nov. 30.   In today's episode of the ESG Insider podcast, we're talking about what to expect from the gathering, including what's at stake and what big themes will be discussed.  We talk to Saugata Saha, President of S&P Global Commodity Insights. He explains the significance of the first-ever global stocktake that will be discussed and finalized at COP28. The stocktake is a process for countries and stakeholders to assess progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Saugata also talks about the path to phasedown and phaseout of fossil fuels.  And we talk to Dan Feldman, a former ambassador who served as Chief of Staff and Counselor to US Secretary John Kerry when he was appointed the first Special Presidential Envoy for Climate by US President Joe Biden. Dan is now Co-Chair of the ESG and Business & Human Rights practices at law firm Covington & Burling. He explains how the conference will unfold and the different players involved from both the public and the private sector.     “We need to have everyone here under the tent,” Dan says. "Everyone, including the private sector, has a really significant role to play."  Learn about events S&P Global Sustainable1 is hosting during COP28 here: https://www.spglobal.com/esg/events/cop28-in-person-event  Read COP28 insights from S&P Global Commodity Insights here: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/topics/2023-climate-change-conference-unfccc-cop28   Listen to a previous podcast episode on the topic of Article 6 here: https://www.spglobal.com/esg/podcasts/at-cop26-why-article-6-matters-to-companies-and-investors   This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1, a part of S&P Global.      Copyright ©2023 by S&P Global     DISCLAIMER     By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   

This day in legal history, September 6, is a dark one – but one that should not be ignored just because it is difficult to talk about. On September 6, 1941, German authorities announced the adoption of a regulation requiring all Jewish people in German territories to wear the Star of David. For our purposes here on a legal news website, we'll talk about how it highlights and exemplifies the Nazi regime's obsession with committing their atrocities under the color of law.From 1935, the Nazi regime utilized the law as a tool for the systemic persecution of the Jewish people, initiating this with the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws. These laws, officially signed by Hitler and other Nazi leaders, stripped German Jews of their citizenship, prohibited marriages between Jews and other Germans, and barred Jews from displaying the German flag, now represented by the swastika. This legal framework, which was further intensified in the subsequent years, facilitated the marginalization, segregation, and eventual extermination of the Jewish community in Germany.The Nazis had begun their legal assault on the Jewish population as early as 1933, using official decrees to progressively strip Jews of various rights, including holding public office, working in certain professions, and participating in economic activities. This legal strategy was part of a broader effort to segregate Jews from the social, political, and economic life of Germany, with the ultimate aim of appeasing radical elements within the Nazi party who were clamoring for more drastic measures against the Jews.During the Nuremberg Trials that followed World War II, these laws served as critical evidence in the prosecution of prominent Nazi leaders, highlighting the extent to which the Nazi regime had manipulated the law to facilitate their campaign of persecution and genocide. In the ongoing California ethics case, attorney John Eastman, who had previously advised that the vice president could overturn the 2020 election results, was compelled to testify, despite his efforts to invoke Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland dismissed Eastman's defense that testifying would infringe on his Fifth Amendment rights, a stance she had maintained even as criminal cases were underway. Eastman, along with Donald Trump and 17 others, faces racketeering charges in Georgia, linked to attempts to declare Trump the winner of the 2020 election.Eastman's lawyer, Randall Miller, emphasized that the demand for Eastman's testimony in the bar case, which could potentially lead to the revocation of his law license, places him in a precarious position. Miller highlighted the dilemma Eastman faces: remaining silent might undermine his defense, while full testimony could jeopardize the ongoing Georgia case. Despite these arguments, Judge Roland noted that Eastman had already waived his right to self-incrimination by testifying extensively in the case and in previous instances, including before the January 6 congressional committee and the Fulton County grand jury.The judge underscored that Eastman was well aware of the gravity of the committee's questions, which were closely tied to the allegations presented in the disciplinary charges. Although the court allowed a brief postponement for Eastman to attend to criminal indictment procedures in Fulton County, it rejected the defense's plea to halt or postpone the case further, citing no alternative reasons were provided. Efforts by Eastman to prevent the state bar prosecutors from presenting evidence concerning his alleged involvement in devising alternative elector slates were also dismissed.As the trial continues, with additional sessions scheduled from September 12-15, Eastman faces 11 counts of ethical and legal violations pertaining to his post-election actions, culminating in the January 6 Capitol raid. During his testimony, he began addressing questions about the memos he had dispatched to presidential advisors, discussing potential strategies to invalidate or delay the vote counting process. The trial is set to feature testimonies from several individuals, including accountant Joseph Fried, who lacks formal training in election audits but conducted a study on the 2020 election "anomalies", and former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Michael Gabelman. The case, represented by Miller Law Associates for Eastman and the Office of Chief Trial Counsel for the bar, continues to unfold.Trump Lawyer Eastman Forced to Testify in California Ethics CaseElliott Broidy, a former prominent fundraiser for ex-President Donald Trump, has issued a subpoena to the law firm Covington & Burling, seeking documents in a lawsuit where he alleges a conspiracy backed by Qatar to hack and defame him. The law firm, which represented Qatar in various US legal cases, objected to the subpoena, citing privilege and sovereign immunity. This move is seen as an assertive approach by Broidy's legal team to involve a US law firm in the case, a rare occurrence due to the attorney-client privilege that usually protects such communications.Broidy, who resigned from his position as the deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee in 2018 following a scandal and was later pardoned by Trump for illegal lobbying charges, initiated this lawsuit four years ago. He accused Qatar of orchestrating a campaign to tarnish his reputation, alleging that they disseminated hacked information about him to journalists. The lawsuit specifically targets consulting firm Stonington Strategies and several individuals who have worked for Qatar, although the nation itself is not officially named in the suit.Broidy contends that both Qatar and Covington have worked to conceal evidence pertinent to the case and has requested the US District Court to mandate a forensic examination to uncover any hidden data. The defendants are expected to respond to these allegations by September 8. Covington has dismissed Broidy's accusations as baseless, emphasizing that the documents in question actually support Qatar's claims of privilege. Trump Ex-Fundraiser Targets Qatar's US Law Firm in Hack LawsuitThe U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina has given preliminary approval to a revised $12.5 billion settlement between 3M and water utilities concerning the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination issue. This settlement includes a unique "Protection Against Claims-Over" provision, which prevents 3M from reclaiming settlement money from water utilities in case of future lawsuits related to drinking water harm. This change enhances the value of the settlement for the participating water systems, as it eliminates the possibility of them being held liable for damages exceeding their recovery from the settlement.The final decision on the settlement will be made by Judge Richard Mark Gergel after a hearing scheduled for February 2, 2024, with 3M's payouts extending until 2036. Despite this, several attorneys general have criticized the settlement amount as insufficient to scover the damages caused by 3M's products to public water systems, burdening ratepayers and taxpayers. They also warned that the ongoing litigation could potentially bankrupt 3M by the end of the 12-year payout period. The settlement might pave the way for a larger agreement resembling the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with tobacco companies, although the science on the diseases resulting from PFAS exposure remains unclear.3M's Revised PFAS Settlement Includes Atypical Liability TermsThree high-ranking Apple executives, Eddy Cue, John Giannandrea, and Adrian Perica, have failed in their attempt to prevent the U.S. Justice Department from summoning them as witnesses in the forthcoming trial against Google, where the latter is accused of misusing its search dominance. The executives had contended that being called to testify would be "duplicative" and "unduly burdensome," given their participation in earlier stages of the case. Despite not being a defendant, Apple claims to have been subjected to "overbroad" demands, having already shared over 125,000 documents from its senior executives.U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected Apple's plea to nullify the subpoenas on Monday. The Justice Department's case is focused on Google's practice of sharing substantial annual advertising revenues with business allies like Apple, to ensure Google's search engine is the default on their devices. The trial, which is expected to scrutinize Google's information-services agreement with Apple closely, is scheduled to commence on September 12 in Judge Mehta's court. Apple has expressed concerns that the trial could inadvertently reveal its highly sensitive competitive information.Apple execs lose bid to block testimony at Google antitrust trial | ReutersThe Oregon Supreme Court is set to vote on a groundbreaking alternative to the bar exam for licensing attorneys in the state. This initiative, which has been in development since 2020 by the Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners, proposes that law school graduates can become licensed after completing 675 hours of supervised legal work, equivalent to the typical study time for the bar exam. The program, named the Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination, also requires candidates to submit eight pieces of legal writing, lead two client interviews or counseling sessions, and spearhead two negotiations, among other prerequisites.Participants' portfolios will be assessed by Oregon bar examiners, and those achieving the necessary scores will be inducted into the state bar, with compensation provided for their efforts. The proposal, which aims to be a model for other states considering similar pathways, would significantly expand the scale of bar exam alternatives, accommodating law students both within and outside Oregon. A second pathway, focusing on practice-based coursework during the last two years of law school, is also under development. Currently, only Wisconsin and New Hampshire offer limited alternatives to the bar exam.Oregon Supreme Court to vote on bar exam alternative | ReutersGoogle has tentatively settled a class-action lawsuit in the U.S., where it was accused of violating federal antitrust laws through its Play Store by allegedly overcharging customers, as per a recent court document. The lawsuit, initiated by over 30 U.S. states representing 21 million consumers, argued that Google's supposed monopoly might have led to increased app prices and limited options for consumers. The specific terms of the settlement remain undisclosed.The parties involved in the settlement have requested the cancellation of the trial that was slated for November 6. While Google has not admitted to any wrongdoing and declined to comment on the settlement, the court's approval is pending. This case is one among several where Google is accused of maintaining monopolies in the Android app and in-app goods markets, often requiring apps to use Google's payment tools and surrender up to 30% of digital goods sales. Notably, Epic Games and Match Group, who have raised similar claims against Google, are not part of this proposed settlement.Google reaches tentative settlement in US Play Store lawsuit | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day in legal history, July 31, 1919 the Constitution of the German Reich was signed in Weimar, Germany. The Constitution of the German Reich, commonly referred to as the Weimar Constitution, was the governing document for Germany during the Weimar Republic era from 1919 to 1933. It was drafted following the end of World War I by the lawyer and liberal politician Hugo Preuss, who played a crucial role in the shaping of the new democratic federal republic. The constitution was deliberated and framed by the German National Assembly, which gathered in the town of Weimar, Thuringia, after the Federal elections held on January 19, 1919. However, the process was not without its disagreements among delegates on issues such as the national flag, religious education for youth, and the rights of the states (Länder) within the Reich. These disagreements were eventually resolved by August 1919, but 65 delegates abstained from voting to adopt the constitution.The Weimar Constitution declared Germany to be a democratic parliamentary republic, introducing universal suffrage with a minimum voting age of 20, and employing proportional representation in the election of the legislature. Despite remaining technically in effect from 1933 to 1945 during the Nazi era, it was practically repealed by the Enabling Act of 1933, leading to its provisions and protections going unenforced throughout Nazi rule. The constitution's title echoed that of the Constitution of the German Empire that preceded it, and the official name for the German state remained "Deutsches Reich" until the adoption of the 1949 Basic Law. The first President of the Republic, Friedrich Ebert, formally signed the parliament-approved Weimar Constitution into law on August 11, 1919, in Schwarzburg, where he was on holiday, despite the parliament working out the constitution in Weimar. Subsequent federal elections were conducted in line with the Weimar Constitution, including those held on June 6, 1920.CoComelon, a popular kids YouTube channel owned by Moonbug Entertainment Ltd., won a significant copyright lawsuit against Chinese competitor BabyBus Co. Ltd. for copying its videos, receiving $23.4 million from the jury. Moonbug accused BabyBus of creating Super JoJo songs that were in some cases nearly identical to CoComelon songs, leading to a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. BabyBus admitted to infringing seven CoComelon works before the trial but contested the alleged infringement of 35 other works. The jury determined that BabyBus willfully infringed dozens of Moonbug's copyrights, and the award included $17.6 million in actual damages and profits, plus $5.8 million in statutory damages. UK-based Moonbug, which also owns other YouTube kids' programs, acquired CoComelon in 2020; it was subsequently purchased by two former Disney executives for $3 billion. BabyBus began its Super JoJo channel in 2019 and was sued by Moonbug and CoComelon creator Treasure Studio Inc. in August 2021, months before a significant acquisition. Moonbug's complaint accused Super JoJo of blatantly copying CoComelon's elements, including characters, settings, and animations, and pointed out examples of identical or nearly identical content; BabyBus countered that many of these elements were unoriginal or inherent in the genre. Tyz Law Group and Horvitz & Levy LLP represented Moonbug, while Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP represented BabyBus in the case. The verdict in the case of Moonbug Entm't Ltd. v. Babybus Network Tech. Co. was reached on July 27, 2023, marking a significant decision in the field of copyright infringement.CoComelon Wins Bulk of Copyright Claims, $23.4 Million From JuryThe Democratic National Committee (DNC) is redistributing legal work to various law firms after parting ways with Marc Elias, a well-known elections lawyer who had been a lead adviser to Democratic committees for more than a decade. The firms receiving work include WilmerHale and Covington & Burling, both of which have large practices in Washington, and Perkins Coie, which continues to provide legal services for the DNC despite reducing much of its consulting for Democrats. The separation from Elias represents a shift in the DNC's legal approach leading up to the 2024 election, though the reasons for the split remain undisclosed. No law firm has clearly assumed the role of the DNC's primary outside firm, and the committee now works with multiple firms on various legal matters. The DNC has also appointed in-house counsel Andrea Levien, who previously worked with Elias. During the 2020 election, Perkins Coie earned $11.2 million from the DNC, almost 65% of the DNC's expenditures for legal services. FEC records also reveal that the DNC is working with several other law firms, including Dentons and Boston-based Hemenway & Barnes, in this election cycle.DNC Work Favors Big Law After Split With Longtime Adviser EliasSam Bankman-Fried, the indicted founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange, is facing calls by prosecutors to be jailed pending his October fraud trial. Prosecutors argue that he has attempted to intimidate witnesses and influence their testimony, specifically pointing to an incident where Bankman-Fried shared excerpts from his former romantic partner's personal documents with a New York Times reporter. He has been under house arrest in Palo Alto, California since his December 2022 extradition from the Bahamas, with bail including a $250 million bond. Bankman-Fried, who has pleaded not guilty, is accused of stealing billions of dollars in FTX customer funds to cover losses at his hedge fund, Alameda Research. His former partner, Caroline Ellison, has pleaded guilty to fraud charges and is expected to testify against him, as are two other former FTX executives. The defense has until August 1 to respond to the government's letter seeking his detention. The court has also barred Bankman-Fried from discussing the case publicly.Sam Bankman-Fried must be jailed, is intimidating witnesses, prosecutors say | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed former U.S. President Donald Trump's $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN. Trump's lawsuit, filed in October 2022, claimed that CNN's characterization of his election fraud allegations as the "big lie" linked him with Adolf Hitler. U.S. Judge Raag Singhal, who was nominated by Trump in 2019, ruled on Friday night that CNN's words were an opinion and not a factual statement, and therefore could not be the subject of a defamation claim. Singhal stated that "CNN's statements while repugnant, were not, as a matter of law, defamatory." The lawsuit cited five instances where CNN referred to Trump's assertions about the 2020 election as his "big lie," a phrase associated with Nazi propaganda. Trump's spokesperson responded to the ruling but did not indicate whether there would be an appeal. The dismissal comes as Trump remains a front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, despite facing both state and federal indictments.Trump's $475 million 'big lie' defamation lawsuit against CNN dismissed | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day in legal history, July 27th, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted 27-11 to recommend impeachment for President Richard Nixon. The events surrounding President Richard M. Nixon's impeachment proceedings date back to June 17, 1972, with the instigation of the Watergate scandal. A group of burglars were arrested at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, located within the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. The burglars were caught wiretapping phones and stealing documents. Significantly, one of the individuals arrested was the security officer for Nixon's re-election campaign, which linked the scandal directly to the president's office.Despite Nixon's denial of any involvement, subsequent evidence uncovered his role in the conspiracy and his attempts to cover up these criminal activities. This evidence was crucial in pushing the impeachment process forward.About a year after the break-in, in July 1973, one of Nixon's former staff members disclosed the existence of secretly taped conversations between the president and his aides. These tapes were deemed potentially vital evidence of the president's involvement in the Watergate scandal and a judge ordered Nixon to submit them for review.While Nixon did provide some of the tapes, controversy arose when it was discovered that a portion of one of the conversations seemed to have been deliberately erased. This apparent act of obstruction further implicated Nixon and escalated the impeachment process.On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee, having weighed the accumulated evidence and the severity of the charges, recommended that President Richard M. Nixon be impeached and removed from office.However, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, before he could be formally impeached by the full House of Representatives and before a trial could take place in the Senate. His resignation marked the first time in U.S. history that a president voluntarily left office. While Nixon never admitted to any criminal wrongdoing, he did acknowledge the use of poor judgment in his handling of the scandal.The Watergate scandal and the events leading up to Nixon's resignation had a significant impact on American politics. It led many citizens to scrutinize the presidency more critically and to harbor increased distrust towards politicians. This profound breach of public trust and political ethics has continued to resonate in American political consciousness.A hearing over Hunter Biden's plea agreement ended without a resolution, as US District Judge Maryellen Noreika voiced concerns over the deal's structure and time frame. The agreement involved tax charges, a firearm violation, and some unprosecuted charges. Initially, Biden intended to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes and a gun possession charge while using illegal drugs. However, misunderstandings between prosecutors and defense lawyers regarding the deal's scope led to an adjournment. An agreed revision stipulates the deal would apply to tax crimes and a firearm violation between 2014 and 2019, leaving Biden open to charges outside this scope. The case continues to cast a shadow over President Biden's second-term run and fuels investigations into the Biden family's business dealings. This unresolved plea deal, coupled with accusations of preferential treatment, has stirred significant political controversy. Perhaps if the other party can field a candidate that isn't currently under indictment, they'll be able to capitalize on that controversy. Hunter Biden Plea Deal in Limbo After Judge Questions Terms (2)Teamsters leader Sean O'Brien led negotiations that resulted in a significant deal with United Parcel Service (UPS), avoiding a potential strike and securing $30 billion in new money over five years. The deal benefits over 340,000 union members and comes at a time of escalating labor tensions. O'Brien's strategy leveraged strict deadlines, feedback from workers, and the threat of a strike. The deal included the elimination of a category of lower-paid drivers and wage boosts for part-time employees. The pandemic has increased appreciation for essential workers and heightened labor bargaining power, benefiting the Teamsters in the negotiations. The deal now awaits approval from union members. O'Brien now aims to organize other warehouse workers, using the UPS contract as a model.‘They Blinked': UPS Call Led to $30 Billion Teamsters Win (1)A U.S. District Judge has ruled that law firm Covington & Burling must identify seven clients relevant to a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into a 2020 cyberattack on the firm. The decision, which could potentially pave the way for federal agencies to examine companies through their law firms, is likely to be appealed. The judge limited the SEC's request to identify all 300 public companies affected by the breach, calling the request "too broad". The judge ordered the law firm to identify only seven clients whose private information could be material to investors. Covington argued that its clients should not be subject to government scrutiny without evidence of wrongdoing. The decision comes at a time of increased SEC interest in cybersecurity and frequent cyberattacks on law firms. The case has raised concerns within the legal community about the potential impact on the private sector's willingness to cooperate with the government after breaches.Order to name Covington clients opens new path for SEC | ReutersA group of booksellers, authors, and publishers has filed a lawsuit against Texas in an effort to halt a new state law that prohibits the sale of "sexually explicit" books in public schools. The legislation, passed by the Republican-led legislature in May and slated to take effect in September, mandates sellers to rate books based on their adult content and allows the Texas Education Agency to review those ratings. Vendors not complying will be barred from selling any books to Texas schools, and books labeled as explicit will be recalled from libraries. The lawsuit argues that the law is a violation of the First Amendment's free speech protections and compels plaintiffs to express government views, even if they disagree. The law's definition of "explicit" is also deemed unconstitutionally vague. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has defended the law as protecting children. This comes amid a wider controversy over banning books dealing with subjects such as LGBTQ issues and race in Republican-controlled states.Publishers, booksellers sue Texas over public school book ban | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

With the news last week of the merger of legal research companies Fastcase and vLex, it seemed a good time to revisit our 2019 interview with the founders of Fastcase, Ed Walters and Phil Rosenthal. The occasion of this interview was the company's 20th anniversary, and we recorded it live, on the exhibit hall floor, at the annual conference of the American Association of Law Libraries.  In this interview, Walters and Rosenthal recount how, as two young associates at the law firm Covington & Burling, they came to found Fastcase in 1999. They also recall some of their greatest successes and worst mistakes over the years as founders, and offer their predictions for the future of Fastcase. How do their predictions in 2019 stand up in 2023? Well, you'll have to listen to find out the answer to that. Although Fastcase started as a legal research company, in recent years, it had diversified and expanded into areas such as legal analytics, legal publishing, legal news, and even legal document automation. That diversification had already started when we spoke to Walters and Rosenthal in 2019. The year before, they had acquired the legal dockets and analytics company Docket Alarm, and, as you will hear, they were already seeing analytics as a key component of their future growth.   Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.  Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Lawmatics, providing legal client intake, law practice CRM, marketing automation, legal billing, document management, and much more, all in one easy-to-use law practice software. If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Chris Beals landed unexpectedly at Weedmaps in 2015 but since then has taken the famed ancillary business public and grown it into one of the most recognizable brands in cannabis. Beals spent his pre-cannabis life advising start-ups and deal-making in highly regulated industries such as healthcare and technology, but it took some tough on-the-job experience to prepare Beals for cannabis' realities. In this episode, Beals talks about:    The importance of due diligence How Weedmaps handles the problem of unlicensed operators Taking a boots-on-ground approach to learning about the industry Expanding Preparing for federal legalization Who is Chris Beals? Chris Beals is the CEO of WM Technology, the parent company of Weedmaps, one of the best known ancillary brands in the cannabis industry. An attorney by profession, Beals joined Weedmaps in 2015 as president and general counsel and took over as CEO in 2019. Before cannabis, Beals was a senior vice president with Colbeck Capital Management, where he focused on deal origination in the technology and health sectors; Deutsche Telecom, where was senior corporate counsel and data privacy officer who managed and advised deal teams involved in acquisitions and partnerships; and the law firm Covington & Burling, where he advised startup and technology companies on deal structuring.

Chris Beals landed unexpectedly at Weedmaps in 2015 but since then has taken the famed ancillary business public and grown it into one of the most recognizable brands in cannabis. Beals spent his pre-cannabis life advising start-ups and deal-making in highly regulated industries such as healthcare and technology, but it took some tough on-the-job experience to prepare Beals for cannabis' realities. In this episode, Beals talks about:    The importance of due diligence How Weedmaps handles the problem of unlicensed operators Taking a boots-on-ground approach to learning about the industry Expanding Preparing for federal legalization Who is Chris Beals? Chris Beals is the CEO of WM Technology, the parent company of Weedmaps, one of the best known ancillary brands in the cannabis industry. An attorney by profession, Beals joined Weedmaps in 2015 as president and general counsel and took over as CEO in 2019. Before cannabis, Beals was a senior vice president with Colbeck Capital Management, where he focused on deal origination in the technology and health sectors; Deutsche Telecom, where was senior corporate counsel and data privacy officer who managed and advised deal teams involved in acquisitions and partnerships; and the law firm Covington & Burling, where he advised startup and technology companies on deal structuring.

Covington & Burling partner Rani Gupta Gupta discusses how insurance recovery litigators are pushing back against courts' assertions that COVID-19 does not result in property damage losses.

0:00 Intro.1:34 Start of interview.2:12 Keir's "origin story". He grew up in the Bay Area and went to high school in Oakland where he ran track and got a scholarship to go to Ohio State. After realizing he wasn't going to be an Olympian, he decided to study law at U Penn. When he graduated in 1999, he joined the SEC where, among other matters, he was part of the shareholder proposals taskforce which led him on the path of corporate governance. After 6 years at the SEC, he joined Covington & Burling where he practiced for about 13 years. In his last year at Covington he worked on the Uber investigation, after which he was hired to join the company as Associate General Counsel for Corporate (where he led the IPO, the company's corporate governance and ESG programs). He later got promoted to Deputy GC. He joined Broadridge Financial Solutions as Chief Legal Officer in 2021.5:55 Keir's role on the governance assessment for the Holder Report in 2017 [where his firm recommended that Uber focus on four prevailing themes with regard to taking the following remedial measures: tone at the top, trust, transformation, and accountability]. His headline: "Governance directly and unequivocally impacts value." "For me, Uber is the quintessential example for that." "At that time, Uber was king of the world: the largest and most valuable Unicorn, rapidly expanding around the world, they had radically changed how people got around." "Uber's scandal started with Susan Fowler's blog post (which indicated a culture in need of change) and the #DeleteUber campaign post travel ban fiasco in NYC." "These events set the company into a spiral, where they had to address these governance and cultural issues in order to thrive and survive."13:40 On Silicon Valley's "growth at all costs" and "founder empowerment" culture, and the unique distinctions between private vs public corporate governance practices: "The real question in my mind is has Silicon Valley learned its lesson? Have the VCs learned?" "Here is the truth of it: for every Theranos, Uber or WeWork, there is a Facebook, and let's be very candid here, FB is still very successful - if you were an original investor in FB you have done very well for yourself - despite the company not embracing the best corporate governance practices [and yet FB is still thriving]." "[Despite some of the governance scandals in tech companies] there is certainly more awareness now about how corporate governance can impact value."19:07 On the evolution of corporate governance and the growing influence of institutional investors. Its impact on private venture-backed companies: "There must be a governance transition based on the growing number of investors participating in the company's evolution (particularly if/when the company goes public)."25:15 On the history and focus of Broadridge Financial Solutions.27:50 On the role of technology, Blockchain, Meme Stocks and Proxy Voting. The Delaware Vice-Chancellor Travis Laster Speech at CII: "The Block Chain Plunder: Using Technology to Clean Up Proxy Plumbing and Take Back the Vote." (2016) The SEC's Proposal to Reduce Risks in Clearance and Settlement. "I'm not sure blockchain will be the technological solution that everyone is embracing."33:36 On proxy contests ("the level of proxy contests seems lower than what we would have expected."), and the new SEC rules on universal proxy cards. This rule will start applying this August ("will it meaningful increase the number of proxy contests? It's an open question at this point.")40:30 Keir's thoughts on boardroom diversity, including SB-826 and AB-979 getting struck down in California Courts: "I personally would not read too much into those [court decisions in California] for two reasons: 1) Spinning in the wind  and 2) "the horse has left the barn" on the topic of boardroom diversity." "Investors, employees, customers and the general public all care about the composition of a board from a diversity perspective." 45:05 His thoughts on the SEC's current agenda. "There is no doubt that there is a very pro-enforcement agenda in place right now." "There is a new Sheriff in town." The EY Enforcement Action (where EY had to pay a $100M penalty for employees cheating on CPA ethics exams and misleading investigation). Dissent from Commissioner Hester Pierce.51:13 On the politicization of boards and how companies and boards have to deal with hot (and controversial) social topics. Assembling a group of employees to handle how, when and what should the company address about these issues. "It's an incredibly hard challenge for GCs and other senior executives." "Employees, customers and investors expect you to address these issues." "How you communicate is super important." His view on the "Mission-focused company" approach taken by Coinbase: "For me, that probably means that I will never be a Coinbase customer because I care deeply about the company to whom I give my money." "I think of Procter & Gamble as the gold standard on how to communicate effectively around these thorny questions." 58:04 A book that has greatly influenced his life: The Autobiography of Malcom X, by Malcom X and Alex Haley (1965)59:00- Who were your mentors, and what did you learn from them? Marty Dunn, former Deputy Director and Chief Counsel of the SEC and former partner at OMM and MoFo.David Martin, partner at Covington & Burling. He was his "Dutch uncle" ("someone who is going to be very hard on you privately, but in public will sing your praises.")1:00:35 - Are there any quotes you think of often or live your life by? From Trillion Dollar Coach (biography of Bill Campbell) by Alan Eagle, Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg (2019):  “Leadership is not about you, it's about service to something bigger: the company, the team. Bill believed that good leaders grow over time, that leadership accrues to them from their teams. He thought people who were curious and wanted to learn new things were best suited for this. There was no room in this formula for smart alecks and their hubris.”1:02:17 - An unusual habit or an absurd thing that he loves: "Zombie Apocalypse everything!"1:03:04 - The living person he most admires: A lot of people but it's a tie: AOC (on the way she uses social media) and Bill Gates (on his transition from business to making a better world).Keir Gumbs is the Chief Legal Officer of Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., where he oversees the legal, compliance and physical security teams. Prior to joining Broadridge, Keir served as Deputy General Counsel and Deputy Corporate Secretary of Uber. Before Uber, Keir was a Partner for nearly a decade at Covington & Burling. Keir's career includes six years of service with the SEC, where, immediately prior to joining Covington & Burling in 2005, he served as Counsel to SEC Commissioner Roel C. Campos. __ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently unveiled a long-anticipated climate disclosure rulemaking proposal. The proposed rule, which is now open for comment, would require companies to disclose certain climate-related information ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to expected climate risks to transition plans.   In this episode of ESG Insider, we explore the potentially wide-reaching implications for investors, companies and for climate disclosure globally.  To help us understand the SEC's proposal as it relates to audit and attestation requirements, we talk with Maura Hodge, who is IMPACT and ESG Audit Leader at professional services firm KPMG. We also learn about the challenges of measuring Scope 3 indirect emissions from our colleague Dr. James Salo, who heads environmental research & ESG modeling at S&P Global Sustainable1. And to explore legal implications surrounding the proposal, we talk with Mellissa Duru, special counsel at law firm Covington & Burling and co-vice chair of the firm's ESG practice. Mellissa previously worked at the SEC in its Corporate Finance Division and as a lead adviser to former Commissioner Kara Stein on the SEC's ESG-related regulatory policy. We'd love to hear from you. To give us feedback on this episode or share ideas for future episodes, please contact hosts Lindsey Hall (lindsey.hall@spglobal.com) and Esther Whieldon (esther.whieldon@spglobal.com). Photo credit: S&P Global Sustainable1 

Philip K. Howard is a longtime leader of government and legal reform in the United States. Amid the current political turmoil, Howard has set his sights on the remorseless increase in the power of public employee unions. This is a thread linking public sector pension shortfalls; local, state, and federal government bureaucratic dysfunction; outdated public infrastructure that costs far more to improve than in comparable nations; and the struggles between parents and teachers’ unions on issues from student masking to curriculum development. Howard’s guiding star is to hold government accountable to the citizens it is intended to serve.In this episode of the Serve to Lead Podcast, Howard discusses his efforts to reform public sector collective bargaining—including an innovative project to challenge its constitutionality. He also explores the evolution of the legal profession, including the decline of the lawyer-statesman ideal. Philip K. Howard’s latest book is Try Common Sense: Replacing the Failed Ideologies of Right and Left (W.W. Norton & Company, January 2019). His 2010 Ted Talk has been viewed over 650,000 times.Howard is also the author of the best-seller The Death of Common Sense (Random House, 1995), The Collapse of the Common Good (Ballantine Books, 2002), Life Without Lawyers (W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), and The Rule of Nobody (W.W. Norton & Company, 2014). He writes periodically for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and other publications. In 2002, Howard founded Common Good, a nonpartisan national coalition dedicated to restoring common sense to America. His 2015 report “Two Years, Not Ten Years” delineated the economic and environmental costs of delayed infrastructure approvals, and has been endorsed by leaders of both major political parties.The son of a minister, Philip K. Howard got his start working summers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner and has been active in public affairs his entire adult life. He is a prominent civic leader in New York City and has advised national political leaders on legal and regulatory reform for three decades, including Vice President Al Gore and numerous governors. He is Senior Counsel at the law firm Covington & Burling, LLP. Howard is a graduate of Yale College and the University of Virginia Law School, and lives in Manhattan with his wife Alexandra. They have four children.The Serve to Lead podcast has recently moved to Substack (and continues to repopulate in updated settings). It can be accessed in the usual formats, including:Apple Podcasts | Amazon Audible | Amazon Music | Google Podcasts | iHeart | Spotify | Stitcher | Podchaser | TuneIn Reference to Patrick J. Shiltz, “On Being a Healthy, Happy, and Ethical Member of an Unhealthy, Unhappy, and Unethical Profession,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 52, Issue 4, 1999. Image: Covington & Burling LLP Get full access to The Next Nationalism at jamesstrock.substack.com/subscribe

This week we talked with former US Consul General in Shanghai Sean Stein. After stepping down from his post last year, Sean now serves as a senior advisor at international law firm Covington & Burling. Sean joined us on the show to discuss some of the biggest risks US businesses in China face right now and what strategies and scenario planning executive teams can use to mitigate that risk, including on issues such as the threat of consumer boycotts and disruptive export controls. Sean also offers his perspective on how companies, as well as the US and Chinese governments, can build and maintain public trust in both countries, and why the way firms characterize their China operations to US audiences matters.  Finally, Sean talks about why cooperation between the US and China should be aggressively pursued when possible, and why he thinks people need to pay more attention to what Chinese officials are reading if they want to know where policy is headed.

Today's guest is Jake Levine, Chief Climate Officer at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is America's development bank. DFC partners with the private sector to finance energy, healthcare, critical infrastructure, and technology solutions. DFC also provides financing for small businesses and women entrepreneurs to create jobs in emerging markets.Most recently, Jake was an Associate and Policy Advisor at Covington & Burling, advising clients on a broad range of policy, regulatory, litigation, and commercial matters related to climate, clean energy, and clean air. Before Covington, he worked as Senior Counsel and Principal Consultant to California State Senator Fran Pavley and Chief of Staff to the President of Opower. Jake also served in the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. He developed innovative energy policies, including the most stringent fuel economy standards and the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Jake holds a B.A. and J.D. from Harvard.In this episode, Jake and I dive into the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC)'s mission, why 95% of our projected global emissions will come from outside the U.S., and his role as Chief Climate Officer. Jake also explains DFC's process and approach to investing, the kind of capital they deploy, and their relationship with local governments. Finally, we end the discussion by exploring breakthrough tech versus deployment of proven tech and where DFC needs help. Jake is a great guest with a wealth of knowledge about international climate investing.Enjoy the show!You can find me on twitter @jjacobs22 or @mcjpod and email at info@myclimatejourney.co, where I encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.Episode recorded December 15th, 2021For more information about DFC, visit: https://www.dfc.gov/For more information about this episode, visit: https://myclimatejourney.co/episodes/jake-levine

Steve Hall joins the program to discuss the current state of play on infrastructure and reconciliation as well as the impending EO on vaccinations for federal contractors.   Make sure to register for our webinar on Monday, October 11th at 1:30pm "Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors." Register here: https://education.acec.org/diweb/catalog/item?id=8329585  The September 24th guidance to federal contractors covered a broad range of contract types and contractors, and mandates COVID-19 vaccinations for covered contractor employees along with masking and social distancing measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The guidance also includes some unanticipated exceptions. The guidance sets baseline requirements under the Executive Order that are expected to be updated over time and implemented through a contract clause that will be issued by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (“FAR”) Council on October 8th. Join attorneys from the Covington & Burling Contracts Practice Group on Monday, October 11 at 1:30 EST to review the requirements A/E firms must meet in order comply with EO 14042 and continue contracting with the federal government. Presenters: Jennifer Plitsch, co-chair of the firm's Government Contracts practice group. Her practice includes a wide range of contracting issues for large and small businesses in both defense and civilian contracting. Her practice involves advising clients on contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as transactional and legislative issues. Her practice also includes bid protest and contract claims and appeals litigation before GAO, agency boards and the federal courts. Ms. Plitsch has particular expertise in advising clients in the pharmaceutical and biologics industry. She advises a range of pharmaceutical and biologics manufacturers on Federal Supply Schedule contracts, including the complex pricing requirements imposed on products under the Veterans Health Care Act, as well as research and development contracts and grants with various federal agencies. She also has significant experience advising on the requirements of various programs under which vaccine products and biodefense medical countermeasures are procured by the Government. Tyler Evans, partner in the Covington & Burling's Washington, D.C. office and a member of the government contracts group. His practice covers multiple subject-matter areas, including research and development, non-traditional contracting, intellectual property, contract negotiations, flow-down requirements, small business issues, sourcing restrictions, costs, and compliance.  

Some musicians are finding NFTs irresistible, seeing them as a new way to connect with fans, make money – and sell slices of their music rights. It seems very easy to sell a small percentage of, for instance, your master recording copyright – with potentially huge rewards. But, warns this week's special guest, there are many ways you could get caught in a tricky situation that you may not have considered – including anti-money laundering laws, securities laws, international tax issues, and the highly volatile nature of cryptocurrency itself. Adrian Perry is partner and co-chair of Covington & Burling LLP's Music Industry practice, and is eager to help musicians and rights owners understand these hidden legal risks. He's no NFT-sceptic, and is enthusiastic about the space – so he helped Music Ally's editor Joe Sparrow understand the associated risks, and how to navigate them. Here's more info on Adrian: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/p/adrian-perry

Marie Sapirie is a contributing editor for Tax Notes, a nonprofit tax publisher, where she writes about federal taxation. Prior to joining Tax Notes, she practiced tax law at Covington & Burling and served as a law clerk for Judge D. Brooks Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Glen E. Conrad of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Marie received her JD from William & Mary Law School and her undergraduate degree from Georgetown University. Prior to law school she taught at a middle school in Japan. Charles Bruce is Chairman of American Citizens Abroad Global Foundation and Legal Counsel of ACA. He is an American tax lawyer and practiced in Washington, DC, London and Lausanne. He currently divides his time between Washington and London. At various times he served on the tax staff of the US Senate Finance Committee and taught tax law at Institut für Ausländisches und Internationales Finanz- und Steuerwesen, Hamburg University, Hamburg, and in the Graduate Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC. "How the Senate's Rules and Precedents Shape the Tax Law" by Marie Sapirie Concurrent Resolution Donate to ACAGF's Educational and Research Work in Support of Residence-Based Taxation  

Then-Senator Biden said in 2005 that "American citizens have benefited from the Senate's check on the excesses of the majority" with "minority protections" through the filibuster. Now, however, President Biden believes the filibuster is being abused and, potentially, impeding democracy. Is Senator Biden or President Biden right? Recent pressure from the press and powerful interest groups on the left seem to agree with President Biden and are urging senators to cast aside their centuries-old tradition of parliamentary procedure in favor of simple majority rule. Should they? What are the consequences if the Senate exercises the nuclear option? Can the Senate still act as our cooling saucer and protect against the "excesses of the majority" without the filibuster?Featuring:- Jon Kyl, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling, and former United States Congressman and Senator- Martin Gold, Partner, Capitol Counsel LLC- Moderator: Peter Roskam, Partner, Sidley Austin, and former Congressman, Illinois' 6th Congressional District

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 800 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls. Elie Honig's new book is Hatchet Man: How Bill Barr Broke the Prosecutor's Code and Corrupted the Justice Department Elie Honig is the Executive Director of the Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities.Before joining the Institute, Honig served as Deputy Director, and then Director, of the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice from 2012 through 2018.  While Director, Honig oversaw a staff of over 500 law enforcement professionals, including prosecutors, detectives, analysts and support staff. During his tenure, the Division charged and prosecuted sweeping cases against street gangs, drug trafficking organizations, illegal firearms traffickers, corrupt public officials, child predators and white-collar corporate thieves. The Division also developed new practice areas aimed at emerging criminal threats including cybercrime, human trafficking, post-Sandy fraud and diversion of prescription painkillers.  As Director, Honig spearheaded successful statewide policy initiatives focused on bail reform, police-involved shooting response, body-worn cameras, community policing, internal affairs, witness protection and deconfliction. Prior to joining the Division of Criminal Justice, Honig worked for eight years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, prosecuting and trying cases involving organized crime, human trafficking, public corruption, and violent crime. From 2010 through 2012, Honig served as Deputy Chief, and later Co-Chief, of the Organized Crime Unit. Honig successfully prosecuted over 100 members and associates of La Cosa Nostra, including Bosses and other high-ranking members of the Gambino and Genovese Organized Crime Families. Honig convicted several mafia leaders of crimes including murder, racketeering, robbery, extortion and other charges at various trials. Honig also charged and tried large-scale cases involving public corruption and human trafficking. As an Assistant United States Attorney, Honig tried 15 cases to jury verdict, and argued over 20 cases in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Before joining the United States Attorney's Office in 2004, Honig worked as an associate at the law firm of Covington & Burling, in Washington, D.C. Honig obtained his undergraduate degree from Rutgers College (New Brunswick) in 1997.  As a Rutgers undergraduate, Honig completed the General Honors Program; was selected as an Eagleton Institute Undergraduate Associate; served as a student government officer; and was inducted in the Cap and Skull Society. Paul  Rieckhoff is an American writer, social entrepreneur, advocate, activist and veteran of the United States Army and the Iraq War. He is the President of Righteous Media Inc and the host of the Independent Americans podcast  prior to that, he was the founder, CEO and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA),a non-partisan non-profit founded in 2004 with tens of thousands of members in all 50 US states. IAVA is America's first and largest Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans group. He served as an army first lieutenant and infantry rifle platoon leader in Iraq from 2003 through 2004. He wrote an awesome book about his time in Iraq called Chasing Ghosts Listen and Subscribe to Paul's Podcast Independent Americans   Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page

Hushmand Cott, Chief Strategic Pricing Officer for Covington Burling and LVN Board Member Justin Ergler, of GSK discuss how law firms and clients can open lines of communication and work together to improve diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and solve tough pricing issues.

072 Erin Egan is the VP and Chief Privacy Officer of Public Policy at Facebook. She leads Facebook's global privacy and data policy team, where she collaborates with policymakers, regulators, advocates, academics and other experts on issues related to privacy and data protection, ensuring Facebook's product and features reflect input from people around the world. Prior to Facebook, she was a partner and co-chair of Covington & Burling's global data protection practice, where she represented technology and media companies on privacy and data security matters.  https://www.SmartVenturePod.com IG/Twitter/FB @GraceGongGG LinkedIn:@GraceGong YouTube: https://bit.ly/gracegongyoutube Join the SVP fam with your host Grace Gong. In each episode, we are going to have conversations with some of the top investors, super star founders, as well as well known tech executives in the silicon valley. We will have a coffee chat with them to learn their ways of thinking and actionable tips on how to build or invest in a successful company.

A Supreme Court expansion proposal is officially out there. It's not going to pass, it's not a particularly good idea, but might proposing it be a smart tactic? Meanwhile, as we get new insights into Biglaw finances from the Am Law 100 release, we got a hefty clue into Covington & Burling's business plan when we learned Eric Holder's hourly rate. Is this too much to bill a client or are people overreacting? Finally, the bonus wars continue, but are counsel and income partners getting left out? Special thanks to our sponsors, LexisNexis® InterAction®, Lexicon and Nota.

A Supreme Court expansion proposal is officially out there. It's not going to pass, it's not a particularly good idea, but might proposing it be a smart tactic? Meanwhile, as we get new insights into Biglaw finances from the Am Law 100 release, we got a hefty clue into Covington & Burling's business plan when we learned Eric Holder's hourly rate. Is this too much to bill a client or are people overreacting? Finally, the bonus wars continue, but are counsel and income partners getting left out? Special thanks to our sponsors, LexisNexis® InterAction®, Lexicon and Nota.

A Supreme Court expansion proposal is officially out there. It's not going to pass, it's not a particularly good idea, but might proposing it be a smart tactic? Meanwhile, as we get new insights into Biglaw finances from the Am Law 100 release, we got a hefty clue into Covington & Burling's business plan when we learned Eric Holder's hourly rate. Is this too much to bill a client or are people overreacting? Finally, the bonus wars continue, but are counsel and income partners getting left out? Special thanks to our sponsors, LexisNexis® InterAction®, Lexicon and Nota.

This conversation amongst friends is a peek into the deep complexities of keeping Black, Indigenous, People of Color, and other marginalized folks safe while they activate and organize for liberation. Black Movement Law Project is about the intentional and deliberate work of first protecting (physically and legally) the people in movement spaces. At the same time, the work of BMLP is supporting local communities to develop sustainable infrastructure so that the people within movement spaces are empowered and cared for. BMLP’s origins thread back to Ferguson and with nash, even further back into the Occupy Movement.  Their work has been fundamental across the country as people protest police brutality and the terrorizing of Black and other mariginalized people by police. What surfaces in this conversation is the strategy and forward-thinking necessary to liberate marginalized folks when working within systems that are designed to subjugate them. Every move must be carefully turned over, anticipating the fall-out way down the road. Historically, as Abi asserts, the very institutions that cause the crises usually come out twice as strong in the end. Thus, with loud calls for accountability for the crimes of the white supremacist insurrectionists, movement people must be mindful of the unintended consequences. During this conversation, for example, Tanay, Nicole, Abi, nash, and Marques carefully turn over how policies regulating hate speech can eventually be used to clamp down on marginalized people trying to organize around systems of oppression. It was fascinating to listen to this “think tank” do its thinking. and see their understanding of the current state of anti-oppression work evolve. Their strategizing and BMLP operations are rooted in their lived experiences as People of Color on the ground during uprisings and their desire to support movement spaces from a place of relationship. No one gets thrown away. As nash says, “Liberation is collective or it’s non-existent.”   In this episode, we talked about: The origin story of the Black Movement Law Project, with its intention to create a proactive space for Black leadership in jail and legal support for the Black Lives Matter activists The priority and focus of  BMLP: to help build up the capacities and infrastructure in local Black-led communities to make movement work sustainable The work now in movement work: to create opportunities for entry The glaring differences in policing white supremacists v. Black activists fighting for their lives and Constitutional rights Monitoring hate speech on social media platforms The level of organization amongst white supremacists during the insurrection and the likelihood of support from the inside How white supremacist mobs in DC highlight Washingtonian’s need for statehood, a community that is mostly Black and without representation in the federal government The very complex difficulties in demanding accountability for the traitors while not putting Black and other marginalized folks at greater risk long term. The systems of accountability are built to oppress marginalized people. The way discernment and intuition guides each of their decision making in dangerous, critical moments What it means to live an inclusive life   Bio:   Tanay Lynn Harris Tanay Lynn Harris is the Founder and Principal Strategist of Tenacity Consulting. As a facilitator, organizer, and abolitionist, she advises and supports organizations to achieve equitable and transformative change through learning journeys and critical social consciousness. She is committed to holistic approaches to cultivating change-makers and ushering in liberation and transformation through the building and cultivation of relationships and reimagining a world anew. Tanay worked for the Center for African American Research and Public Policy at Temple University as a co-coordinator and was an educator in Philadelphia. Her time as a grassroots organizer in Philadelphia learning from leading activists, scholars, and building in the community, she learned more deeply Tanay has worked on some of the nation's leading high-profiled legal cases and pressing issues of our time. She is a former national organizer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc (LDF) in New York City. Tanay worked with leaders and community members in various cities across the country to help build capacity and momentum, based on their collective needs and wants. She worked on several Supreme Court cases and was a member of the legal team for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Her work at LDF was at the intersection of death penalty abolition, criminal justice, juvenile justice, educational equity, and voter suppression. After her time at LDF, she worked with global ecumenical faith leaders around social justice and human rights issues through a liberation theology lens. Tanay leveraged legal support in Ferguson and Baltimore during the Uprising, to protect the rights of protestors and the community through holistic legal and technical support. She works with Black Movement Law Project where she continues to support as a community coordinator. Building the power of and with impacted people and communities is critical to creating meaningful and lasting change. Additionally, Tanay is dedicated to maternal and birthing persons' health and reproductive justice as a birth worker, researcher, and care worker. She is a Kindred Partner with the Black Mamas Matter Alliance and a member of the Maryland Maternal Health Taskforce. She is on the Advisory Board of CLLCTIVLY in Baltimore, which provides an ecosystem of support for Black-led businesses and organizations. Tanay is a graduate of Africana Studies/African American studies at Temple University and the Center for Social Impact Strategies from the University of Pennsylvania.   Nathan “nash” Sheard Nathan "nash" Sheard is a cofounder and legal organizer with Black Movement Law Project (BMLP). nash's work is informed by lived experience with aggressive and militarized policing, including racial profiling, the effects of biased broken windows policing tactics, and police brutality.  nash has worked extensively to help mitigate the damage of harmful interactions with law enforcement online and in over-policed communities. In addition to organizing with BMLP, nash is a founding member of the Mutant Legal activist collective and Associate Director of Community Organizing at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).  nash has spent close to a decade training communities in crisis on how to document police conduct, exercise their legal rights, counteract state repression, and actively participate in their own legal defense.   Marques Banks Marques Banks Works as a Justice Project Staff Attorney at the National Office of Advancement Project, a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization. Prior to joining, Advancement Project in 2020, Marques worked at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs as an Equal Justice Works Fellow sponsored by Covington & Burling, LLP.  During his fellowship, Marques challenged the criminalization of poverty, through direct representation and policy advocacy for individuals subject to overly onerous fines, fees and jail time for minor offenses. After his fellowship ended, Marques continued to work at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee challenging policing practices in the D.C. area. During law school, Marques interned at NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He worked as a research assistant for Professor Justin Hansford, Saint Louis University School of Law. He also participated in Columbus Community Legal Services’ Advocacy for the Elderly Clinic, representing individuals denied social security benefits. Marques helped create Black Movement-Law Project, an organization providing legal support to the activists and organizations of the Movement for Black Lives. He provided legal support in Ferguson, MO, Baltimore, MD, and other cities across the U.S. During the 2015 uprising in Baltimore, Marques trained hundreds of legal observers. Marques is a graduate of The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. He is a member of Law 4 Black Lives DC and Black Lives Matter DC.   Abi Hassen Abi Hassen is a political philosophy student, attorney, technologist, and co-founder of Black Movement Law Project, a legal support rapid response group that grew out of the uprisings in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere.  Abi is currently a partner at O’Neill and Hassen LLP, a law practice focused on indigent criminal defense.  Prior to this current work, Abi was the Mass Defense Coordinator at the National Lawyers Guild. He has also worked as a political campaign manager and strategist, union organizer, and community organizer.  Abi is particularly interested in exploring the dynamic nature of institutions, political movements, and their interactions from the perspective of Complex Systems studies.   Resources: Bios for Tanay, nash, Marques and Abi Mumia Abul Jamal is an internationally celebrated black writer and radio journalist, a former member of the Black Panther Party who has spent the last 30 years in prison, almost all of it in solitary confinement on Pennsylvania’s Death Row. Dr. Ashon Crawley is a teacher, writer, and artist who engages a wide range of critical paradigms to theorize the ways in which “otherwise” modes of existence can serve as disruptions against the marginalization of and violence against minoritarian lifeworlds and as possibilities for flourishing. Section 230: “The most important law protecting internet speech.” Kettling: is a controversial police tactic for controlling large crowds during demonstrations or protests where police officers form large cordons which move to corral a crowd within a smaller, contained area. This tactic has resulted in the detention of  bystanders as well as protesters. — Thank you so much for joining us! Our conversation continues on Facebook in our Inclusive Life Community. You can also follow us on Instagram and learn more at www.inclusivelife.co. Please click here to leave a review for The Inclusive Life Podcast. Subscribe on your favorite podcast app to get notified when a new episode comes out! Instagram @inclusivelife Facebook @inclusivelife Facebook Group @Inclusive Life Website www.inclusivelife.co Subscribe to The Inclusive Life Podcast Apple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts

Three studies revealed new findings on thrombosis in patients with cancer and/or COVID-19. These studies were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. One study suggested the Khorana score may be ineffective for predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Another study revealed factors that can predict VTE in patients with cancer and COVID-19. And a third study indicated that antithrombotic agents don’t improve outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19.  Kristen M. Sanfilippo, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, reviews these studies with host David H. Henry, MD, in this episode. Abstract 202: Performance of Khorana Score to Predict One-Year Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Over Two Million Patients With Cancer. https://bit.ly/3oCHOfQ. The study included 2,112,260 patients with cancer. At 1 year after diagnosis, 227,170 (10.8%) patients had developed VTE. The Khorana score was a weak to modest predictor of the 1-year risk of VTE (area under the curve, 0.565; 95% confidence interval, 0.564-0.566). Abstract 204: Incidence of and Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism Among Hospitalized Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: Report From the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Registry. https://bit.ly/38waPnX. The study included 1,813 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and cancer who were enrolled in the CCC19 registry. Patients had an increased risk of VTE if they had received anticancer therapy in the last 3 months (odds ratio, 1.63), had active disease (OR, 1.25 for stable/responding disease and 1.67 for progressing disease), had a cancer subtype with a high VTE risk (OR, 1.57 for high risk and 3.42 for very high risk), or were admitted to the ICU within 48 hours of hospitalization (OR, 2.38). Patients had a reduced risk of VTE if they received preadmission anticoagulant (OR, 0.80) or antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.71). The researchers said this information will aid the development of a risk prediction tool for VTE in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19. For more information on the CCC19 registry, listen to the Blood & Cancer episode, “Studying cancer patients with COVID-19: NCCAPS and CCC19.” https://bit.ly/39lB0x0. Abstract 206: Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Use not Associated With Improvement in Severe Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients. https://bit.ly/3bvHqvV. This retrospective study included 28,076 patients with confirmed COVID-19 – 1,024 of whom were on antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants, or both. Chronic anticoagulant or antiplatelet use was not associated with a significantly lower risk of VTE (OR, 1.44), emergency department visit (OR, 0.94), ICU stay (OR, 0.87), or death (OR, 0.91). However, anticoagulant or antiplatelet use was associated with a decreased risk of ventilator use (OR, 0.72). Overall, these findings suggest chronic anticoagulant or antiplatelet use don't mitigate disease severity in COVID-19 patients, the researchers concluded. The session in which these abstracts were presented is entitled, “904. Outcomes Research – Non-Malignant Conditions: Venous Thromboembolism Associated With Cancer and/or COVID-19,” and details can be found here: https://bit.ly/39olwIl. Data in some of the abstracts differ from data presented at the meeting. Disclosures Dr. Sanfilippo disclosed relationships with Covington & Burling, Luther & Associates, Bayer, Health Services Advisory Group, and Amgen. Dr. Henry has no relevant disclosures. *  *  * For more MDedge Podcasts, go to mdedge.com/podcasts Email the show: podcasts@mdedge.com Interact with us on Twitter: @MDedgehemonc David Henry on Twitter: @davidhenrymd

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Carlton F.W. Larson, of the University of California Davis School of Law, to discuss the events of January 6th and the siege on the U.S. Capitol. Aaron and Carlton have an incredibly important and timely conversation on the legalities of treason, insurrection, sedition and seditious conspiracy, as well as Trump’s responsibility, involvement and failure to protect.     Today’s conversation is of the utmost importance after the tragedy of Wednesday’s attack on Capitol Hill. The world watched in horror as a violent mob stormed the steps of Capitol Hill and seized possession of the Nation’s Capitol on one of America’s darkest days, Aaron and Carlton talk about what happened and the aftermath that we are now forced to sort through. Carlton and Aaron have a conversation about accountability, the history of treason and treason law, the incoming Biden Administration and the new Justice Department, and levying war. Aaron and Carlton touch on the Founders, case law, Article III, and more. What happens next? Is this treason? Is Trump responsible?   Carlton F.W. Larson is the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis, as well as a scholar of American constitutional law and Anglo-American legal history. Professor Larson’s scholarship addresses a wide range of issues, including enemy combatant detentions, legacy preferences in public universities, the historical basis of Second Amendment rights, and parents’ rights to name their children. A graduate of both Harvard University and Yale Law School, Professor Larson is one of the nation’s leading authorities on the law of treason and is the author of the books On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law (Ecco/HarperCollins) and The Trials of Allegiance: Treason, Juries, and the American Revolution (Oxford University Press). Professor Larson’s scholarship has been cited by numerous federal and state courts and has been profiled in The New York Times, The Economist, TIME, and others. He is a frequent commentator for the national media on constitutional law issues and recently published a piece in The Washington Post, “The framers would have seen the mob at the Capitol as traitors.”   Prior to joining the UC Davis law faculty, Professor Larson served as a law clerk to Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and spent three years as a commercial litigator at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.     Listen now!   To read Professor Larson’s recent Washington Post article, “The framers would have seen the mob at the Capitol as traitors,” please click here.   To check out Professor Larson’s book, On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law, please click here.   To check out Professor Larson’s book, The Trials of Allegiance: Treason, Juries, and the American Revolution, please click here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Carlton F.W. Larson   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Ben Lieber is the Founder and Managing Partner of Potomac Law Group, an all-remote national law firm with an innovative approach to law firm management and technology. Ben has wide-ranging experience in both business and law, having practiced as a Strategy Consultant at McKinsey & Company, a Tax Attorney at Covington & Burling, and General Counsel of several private companies before founding Potomac Law Group in 2011.  Ben received his bachelor's degree in Engineering from Cornell University and his J.D. from Georgetown University, where he was a member of the Georgetown Law Journal. In this episode… With the pandemic forcing many industries to change the way they work, the legal industry has had to scramble to find ways to continue providing clients with quality service and representation from their own homes. For many law firms, learning how to operate in a virtual world has been a new and challenging obstacle in 2020.  However, this isn't all that new for some: Ben Lieber created a firm with a virtual model before COVID-19 ever happened—10 years before, to be exact. So, what is Ben's advice to law firm leaders and attorneys who are currently faced with the challenge of transitioning to remote work? Elise Holtzman is joined by Ben Lieber, the Founder and Managing Partner of Potomac Law Group, in this episode of The Lawyer's Edge. Together, they discuss the legal industry's current transition to remote work and what inspired Ben to shift to a virtual workplace almost 10 years ago. Ben also talks about the role technology has played in his law firm's success and the lessons he has learned along the way. Keep listening!

27:43 James S. Gordon, MD , a Harvard-educated psychiatrist, is internationally recognized for using self-awareness, self-care, and group support to heal population-wide psychological trauma. He is founder and executive director of the nonprofit Center for Mind-Body Medicine in Washington, D.C., a clinical professor at Georgetown Medical School, and was chairman (under Presidents Clinton and GW Bush) of the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. Dr. Gordon’s latest book, The Transformation: Discovering Wholeness and Healing After Trauma, helps us understand that trauma will come sooner or later to all of us. Trauma, he explains, is a human experience, not a pathological anomaly. In The Transformation, he guides us step by step in a comprehensive evidence-based program to reverse the psychological and biological damage that trauma causes. He shows us, drawing on the latest scientific research, 50 years of clinical experience, timeless wisdom, and inspiring life stories, how we can, as we meet the challenges that trauma brings, discover the ordinary joys as well as the meaning and purpose of our lives. We come to know that our broken hearts can open with greater compassion and love. 1:11 Carlton Larson is a scholar of American constitutional law and Anglo-American legal history.  His scholarship addresses a wide range of issues, including enemy combatant detentions, legacy preferences in public universities, the historical basis of Second Amendment rights, and parents’ rights to name their children.  Professor Larson is one of the nation’s leading authorities on the law of treason and is the author of the books On Treason: A Citizen's Guide to the Law (Ecco/HarperCollins) and The Trials of Allegiance: Treason, Juries, and the American Revolution (Oxford University Press). Professor Larson’s scholarship has been cited by numerous federal and state courts and has been profiled in The New York Times, The Economist, TIME, and many other publications.  He is a frequent commentator for the national media on constitutional law issues. Professor Larson is a graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School, where he was an Articles Editor of The Yale Law Journal and Executive Editor of The Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities.  Prior to joining the UC Davis law faculty, Professor Larson served as a law clerk to Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and spent three years as a commercial litigator at Covington & Burling in Washington, DC. Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page Please consider a paid subscription to this daily podcast. Everyday I will interview 2 or more expert guests on a wide range of issues. I will continue to be transparent about my life, issues and vulnerabilities in hopes we can relate, connect and grow together. If you want to add something to the show email me StandUpwithPete@gmail.com Join the Stand Up Community Stand Up is also brought to you this month by GiveWell.org GiveWell is a nonprofit dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities and publishing the full details of our analysis to help donors decide where to give. GiveWell.org/Standup

“I am motivated by tomorrow. I've always believed that the best is yet to come. I've never believed that every day has to be a happy day for me. What I want to have is more like a deep and abiding sense of satisfaction and -- dare I say -- joy.” Thomasenia (“Tommie”) Duncan is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was a member of the Penn Law Review. She completed her third year of law studies as a visiting scholar at Yale Law School.    Tommie started her legal career on a conventional track in private practice as a very successful litigator at the prestigious firm, Covington & Burling, LLP. Tommie then focused her career on leading government and nonprofit legal offices, including as General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission, General Counsel of America's Promise – The Alliance for Youth, and General Counsel of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Tommie also has been a professor of law at the District of Columbia School of Law (where she founded the HIV/AIDS Legal Clinic) and at Georgetown University Law Center.    Tommie discovered a new path of leadership as a lawyer. She is the Panel Executive for the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The MDL Panel consists of seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In her position, Tommie is the “chief executive officer” and “chief legal officer.” She leads the MDL Panel's legal, operational, and administrative staff. Tommie says, “I progress... in two situations: One is when I've learned something. And one is when I've taught something. Both of those things take me down the road of discovery. When I feel like I have learned something about myself, about the world, about my profession, or when I have taught something, I feel like I'm progressing.” Discover more by listening to today's episode.

This interview was first recorded in February 2020. The world was a very different place then from the one we face in June 2020, at the time of its release. First coronavirus, then worldwide peaceful protests in response to the murder of George Floyd by an on-duty cop, have caused seismic global convulsions that are still reverberating. Because none of that had happened yet, it wasn't directly addressed in this conversation. Solving #MeToo stands with the Black Lives Matter protesters. Not only that, it is a fundamental part of our mission to seek out solutions to workplace sexual harassment and assault that work for ALL women, not just straight white affluent women. We do that by looking at the problems (and possible solutions) from a diversity of perspectives, as well as actively seeking out a diversity of voices to speak. Near the top of today's show, we invite you to listen to the trailer for The So-Called Oreos Podcast, a terrific project from 4 young Women of Color - Kia, Janae, Rachel and Amari. Their show addresses everything from career advancement to feminism to dating through the lens of being so-called oreos (black on the outside, white on the inside). https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/so-called-oreos/id1462012568  Today's episode of Solving MeToo features Sharmili Majmudar, the EVP of policy and organizational impact at Women Employed, an almost 50 year old organization widely recognized for its innovative work to improve women's economic status and remove barriers to economic equity. As in most episodes, we tackled the big philosophical questions this podcast seeks to address; and the back and forth that we had about restorative justice was really illuminating and thought provoking. We went on to discuss what companies can and should be doing to provide safer and more inclusive workplaces for all their employees. Here are a number of the resources referenced in the conversation:  The recommendations to Uber, compiled by Eric Holder and the law firm Covington & Burling https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/eric-holder-uber-report-full-text.html EEOC Promising Practices Guide for Preventing Harassment, from Nov 2017: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/promising-practices-preventing-harassment "Men agree that gender diversity is important on boards - but they're sick of hearing about it," by Emma Hinchliffe for Fortune, Oct 8, 2019 https://fortune.com/2019/10/08/pwc-gender-diversity-boards-men-2019/ So if you're the leader of a company or organization, we offered you the spectrum of accountability that you need to create, as well as the outcomes you should be expecting from your employee education. Spoiler: it's not just about checking a box to protect yourself from legal liability.   

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with investigative journalist and prolific blogger Marcy Wheeler (a.k.a. emptywheel), who has a novel take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn who, as our listeners know, fired Covington & Burling, hired a loon, and has tried to withdraw his guilty plea. Marcy tells us what she thinks this means! We begin with a bit of analysis and some kind words from a listener in light of the disappointing Senate vote to block witnesses that came down late Friday night. Yes, this means the impeachment is effectively over. No, it doesn't mean we're going to stop fighting. After that, it's time to tackle Marcy Wheeler's take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. We do a deep dive into the two most recent sentencing memoranda filed by the government in Flynn's case while trying to figure out what this portends. You don't want to miss it! After all that, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 164 involving a crazed roommate, an aborted murder, and exactly what you could charge him with. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

In another of a series of special reports recorded live at the Clio Cloud Conference, LawNext host Bob Ambrogi interviews Ed Walters, CEO and cofounder of the online legal research company Fastcase.  Under Ed’s leadership, Fastcase has grown to become one of the world’s largest legal publishers, currently serving more than 800,000 subscribers from around the world. He is an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and at Cornell Tech, where he teaches The Law of Robots, a class about the frontiers of law and technology. Before founding Fastcase, Ed worked at Covington & Burling, in Washington D.C. and Brussels, where he advised Microsoft, Merck, SmithKline, the Business Software Alliance, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League. His practice focused on corporate advisory work for software companies and sports leagues, and intellectual property litigation. See also: LawNext Episode 45: As Fastcase Turns 20, Founders Recount Its History and Predict Its Future. Bonus Content Alert for our Patreon Supporters: Listen to Bob and Ed's conversation about skipping class in law school during our sound check on our Patreon page or using the custom RSS feed we provided!

A lot can happen in a year! GTR Asia 2018 was dominated by the backdrop of ongoing trade tensions and potential ramifications of a full-scale trade war between the US and China. So what is new 12 months later? During GTR Asia 2019, the world's largest international gathering for the trade finance community, six experts come together to reflect on a range of topics including: Trade tensions and the geopolitical environment: Have things simmered down somewhat? Are we back to a new normal or is there even a ‘normal' to return to? Are technology transfer and IP likely to remain as key sticking points? With initiatives such as Belt & Road shifting economic activity eastwards, how are banks and corporates responding? Is greater collaboration required and if so how has the stated shift from multilateralism to bilateralism impacted? What are the key sectors that have been identified as being ripe for PPPs and other scalable commercial opportunities (digital transformation, cybersecurity, digital economy, smart cities, renewable energy)? Where are technology and innovation leading the market? Data and digitisation have proved key but is there sufficient regulatory oversight? Where is Asia leading the way and where does it need to catch up? Analysis by: Michael Every, Head of Financial Markets Research, Asia-Pacific, Rabobank Moderator: Parag Khanna, Founder & Managing Partner, FutureMap; Global Strategy Advisor & Author, ‘The Future is Asian' Ajay Sharma, Regional Head of Global Trade & Receivables Finance, Asia Pacific, HSBC Timothy Stratford, Managing Partner, Covington & Burling; Former Assistant US Trade Representative Vishal Kapoor, Managing Director, Asia Trade Head, Citi Claire Thompson, Executive Vice-President, Enterprise Partnerships, Mastercard

In this Making Leaders interview conducted at the Hall of Fame Celebration, we hear from Henry Goldberg, Partner at Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright and one of the three inductees to the Space & Satellite Hall of Fame for 2019. Henry  is a leading U.S. regulatory lawyer who has been a key figure in shaping the modern commercial space industry through development of U.S. and international legal and regulatory frameworks. Over a more-than-fifty-year career that began at Covington & Burling in Washington D.C. in 1966, Henry has opened legal doors to numerous innovations in satellite and broadcasting throughout the world, carving out regulatory territory for new types of companies and their technologies to grow and flourish. From 1968 to 1970, while at Covington, he participated in the FCC’s first domestic satellite proceeding and established the essential principle that users are eligible to own and operate earth stations that communicate with carrier-owned satellite systems. Henry also filed the first application for a user-owned satellite earth station on behalf of the affiliate associations of major TV broadcast networks. He moved to the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy shortly afterward in 1971, where he eventually succeeded Antonin Scalia as OTP’s General Counsel. While at the White House, Henry played a significant role in the implementation of the “open skies” satellite policy that spawned new satellite-delivered television networks, including HBO, C-SPAN and CNN.

Facebook hired former Sen. Jon Kyl, senior counsel at the firm Covington & Burling, to investigate allegations of anti-conservative bias at the social media company. In his first interview since the report's release, Kyl tells The Daily Signal what he discovered and how Facebook should move forward. He also responds to criticism of the report. A transcript is available at DailySignal.com.We also cover these stories:• A new jobs number shows job growth hasn’t been quite as robust as previously reported.• Military vets who are permanently disabled will soon have quicker access to loan forgiveness, thanks to a new executive order.• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is taking heat after calling the Electoral College a “scam” that has a “racial injustice breakdown.” The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

It was 20 years ago that two Covington & Burling associates, Ed Walters and Phil Rosenthal, made the audacious move of quitting their jobs and launching the legal research company Fastcase. Their goal was to democratize the law through affordable pricing and smarter technology. Two decades later, that once-scrappy company is now a major player in the legal research market.  At the recent annual conference of the American Association of Law Libraries, Walters and Rosenthal — now CEO and president respectively — sat down for a live interview with LawNext host Bob Ambrogi. They recount the beginnings of their company, its growth over the intervening 20 years, and their successes and mistakes over the years. They also offer predictions for where Fastcase and legal research will be in another 20 years.  This episode of LawNext was produced and recorded in collaboration with the Legal Talk Network. A big thanks to them for partnering with us on this podcast.  NEW: We are now on Patreon! Subscribe to our page to be able to access show transcripts, or to submit a question for our guests. Comment on this show: Record a voice comment on your mobile phone and send it to info@lawnext.com.

  5G Broadband Beyond Faster Speeds with Lauren McCarty (Ep. 194) Nokia's Lauren McCarty joined Joe Miller to discuss the potential for 5G beyond faster speeds on Ep. 194 of the WashingTECH Tech Policy Podcast.   News Roundup    FaceApp Terms of Service Prompt Angst Among Lawmakers   FaceApp, a viral app created by Russian firm Wireless Lab sparked privacy concerns and angst among law makers last week. Faceapp allows users to upload selfies and lets users see what they’d look like if they swapped genders or what they’re likely to look like 50 years from now.   The app’s terms of service, though, which few of us actually reads, leaves it within Faceapp’s sole discretion to terminate your access to its services, even if losing access causes you loss or harm. The terms also reserve FaceApp’s right to store your pictures, even after you remove them, to “including and without limitation” comply with certain U.S. and foreign regulations, which could be those of any government in the world, including the Russian government.  The terms acknowledge that Faceapp uses an artificial intelligence algorithm that enables its ability to alter your photos.   Senator Chuck Schumer called for the FBI and FTC to investigate, saying in a letter to the agencies that the app could pose “national security and privacy risks for millions of U.S. citizens”.   Senate passes bill to criminalize voting systems hacking   Partially in response to the domestic hacking of election systems, and partially in response to Russia’s hacking of the 2016 presidential election that was alleged in the Mueller report, the Senate has passed a bill which would criminalize the hacking of voter machines to gain access to voter data. The Defending the Integrity of Voting Systems Act passed by unanimous consent on Wednesday night. Senators Whitehouse,  Blumenthal, and Graham introduced the legislation earlier this year.       President’s plea to Trump supporters on the fence: download the app   The Washington Post reported last week that Trump’s re-election campaign is trying to shore up support via a new app that campaign officials say will be released in the coming weeks. The mobile will allow Trump supports to organize in their local communities and register to vote.   Feinstein targets social media bots spreading misinformation Social media bots are widely seen to have played a decisive role in spreading misinformation in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In fact Symantec released a report in June showing that Russia’s propaganda program in that election cycle was even more extensive than was originally thought. So Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation to prohibit campaigns from using these spam bots to “subvert future elections”.  It’s called the Bot Disclosure and Accountability Act.   Maxine Waters, Senate Banking Committee, Trump, Mnuchin all highly skeptical of Facebook’s Libra Powerful lawmakers including Maxine Waters and most of the Senate Banking Committee, as well as administration officials including the president and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, are all highly skeptical of Facebook’s new cryptocurrency, Libra. Senator Sherrod Brown on the Senate Banking Committee was especially vocal in his opposition to the currency during a hearing in which Facebook’s lead for the project, David Marcus, testified. Brown was incredulous that after Facebook which “moved fast and broke our political discourse … broke journalism,  helped incite a genocide and … undermin[ed] our democracy” now wants to have a global cryptocurrency available to its 2 billion+ users that would be a global, commercial version of the Federal Reserve. Republicans on the panel also expressed opposition including Banking Commission Chairman Mike Crapo, who suggested the creation of a separate regulatory agency to deal with cryptocurrency.   In the House, Maxine Waters announced that she will be calling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in to testify.   Amazon hires Trump ally to bolster lobbying on Pentagon contract Amazon has hired Trump ally Jeff Miller to lobby on behalf of the company to win approval to work on a $10 billion “war cloud” contract for the Pentagon. Earlier in the week, Trump had expressed opposition to the contract. Republicans are also urging the president not to thwart the contract.   Sanders, Omar urge investigation into working conditions at Amazon warehouse   Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar were joined by 10 other members of Congress in a letter to the Department of Labor asking the agency to investigate working conditions at an Amazon warehouse in Minnesota where workers protested about working conditions.   Real Estate Agent Tanya Gersh scores $14m victory against Daily Stormer Founder Andrew Anglin A magistrate judge in the Federal District of Montana, Missoula Division recommended that Chief Judge Dana Christensen enter a default judgement of $14 million in damages against the founder of a neo-Nazi website. Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin had twice failed to appear for his deposition in the case brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Ms. Gersh back in 2017. The suit contends that Anglin initiated a “troll storm” against real estate agent Tanya Gersh after Gersh advised the mother of alt-right figure Richard Spencer to denounce her sons views in order to sell her property. Judge Christensen has already ruled in favor Gersh, finding that the First Amendment doesn’t protect harassing speech, so now it’s just a question of whether Judge Christensen will sign off on the magistrate judge’s damages recommendation.     Events   Tues., July 23 American Federation for Children Parents and Students Share their Vision for Twenty-First Century Education in America 11:45pm – 1pm Senate Visitors Center, Room 202   Congressional Caucus on Smart Cities Smart Campuses 101: Introduction to the Future 12-1pm Rayburn House Office Building, Rm. 2044     Population Association of America Drawing a Line: How We Measure Poverty and Why it Matters 2-3pm Rayburn, 2043 Wed., July 24 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Anti-Semitism: The World’s Oldest Hatred – New Again 8:00AM-9:00am Rayburn House Office Building Rm. 2168   Girls in Tech Venture Capital 101 11:45am-1:00pm Mindspace 1301 K St., NW   Girl Scouts of America Ready for Takeoff: Girl Scouts and Space Science 12-1:00pm Rayburn, 2325   Government Affairs Industry Network Career Transitions:  Expectations v. Reality 12:00-1:30pm Covington & Burling 850 10th St., NW   Leader Schumer+Senate Diversity Ice Cream Social 3:30pm-5:30pm Hart Senate Office Building, 902   U.S. Department of Energy Modernizing the Grid for American Security, Innovation, and Economic Growth 4pm-7-pm Rayburn, 2253     Mon., July 29   Public Opinion Strategies What’s Next for Patient Experience Measurement? 11:45AM-1:30pm Dirksen Senate Office Building, G50  

Today's instant-breaking episode takes a look at the significance of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's decision to fire his lawyers, Andrew's buddies over at Covington & Burling. Oh, and we also take a semi-deep-dive into President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on "all goods" imported from Mexico. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a slight preview of next week's show, which will break down the impending tariffs on goods imported from Mexico. How is this like (or unlike) Trump's decision to impose steel tariffs on China? You'll have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment in which we learn that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has fired his lawyers at Covington & Burling? What does that mean? Only time will tell. For the "C" segment, we break down the upcoming DNC debate, who's qualified, and what legal remedies some of the "loser" candidates might have. After all that, it's time for #TTTBE involving torts, contributory negligence, and joint and several liability. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Trump's tariffs on China in episode 162 Trump's statement on Mexican tariffs is here The prior authority relied upon by Trump is the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 Click here to read a CNBC piece on the likelihood of a trade war. You can read Vol I. and Vol. II of the Mueller in searchable PDF. Here's the evidence C&B was fired. Here are the DNC rules and you can check out "Bernie Sanders's" failed lawsuit here. -Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

  Bio Harold Feld is Public Knowledge's Senior Vice President. Before becoming Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge, Harold worked as Senior Vice President of Media Access Project, advocating for the public interest in media, telecommunications, and technology policy for almost 10 years. Prior to joining MAP, Harold was an associate at Covington & Burling, worked on Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and accountability issues at the Department of Energy, and clerked for the D.C. Court of Appeals. He received his B.A. from Princeton University, and his J.D. from Boston University Law School. Harold also writes Tales of the Sausage Factory, a progressive blog on media and telecom policy. In 2007, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin praised him and his blog for "[doing] a lot of great work helping people understand how FCC decisions affect people and communities on the ground." Resources Public Knowledge The Case for the Digital Platform Act by Harold Feld   News Roundup   Supreme Court takes a bite out of Apple in app store case   In a 5-4 the decision, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to Apple in a class action lawsuit claiming that company’s app store is a monopoly. The case will now proceed in the district court. The issue was whether regular consumers have standing to sue Apple for antitrust violations, or whether it was just competitors who have standing to sue. Justice Kavanaugh sided with the court’s liberal justices, saying that if consumers didn’t have standing, that retailers would be able to evade antitrust enforcement, by structuring deals with suppliers and manufactures in a way that complies with the black letter of the law, but still effectively have a monopoly.   Uber driver allegedly locks two women in his car   Police in Pittsburgh arrested an Uber driver, Richard Lomotey, who is also an assistant professor at Penn State’s Beaver campus, for allegedly locking two female passengers in his car and telling them, “you’re not going anywhere”. Lomotey is charged with two counts of kidnapping.   Protests over Palantir   Protestors converged on Palantir’s headquarters around the country over the company’s $38 million contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to the Intercept, Palantir, which was founded by Trump adviser Peter Thiel, has been working with ICE to help them target and deport unaccompanied children and their families. Palantir says that it only helps ICE with investigations. But the Intercept found written documents, obtained via a FOIA request, that show Palantir pursued an “Unaccompanied Alien Children Human Smuggling Disruption Initiative” with both of ICE’s two major divisions: Homeland Security and Investigations and its other division, which is called Enforcement and Removal Operations.   Symantec: Chinese spies captured NSA’s hacking tools and used them against the U.S.   The New York Times reports that Symantec has discovered that Chinese spies hacked into the National Security Agency and stole its hacking tools. Then it took those tools and used them against the United States. Experts are now questioning what role the U.S. should now play in defining cybersecurity practices around the world. The New York Times describes what China did as being similar to a “ gunslinger who takes an enemy’s rifle and starts blasting away”, making cybersecurity, in a lot of ways, like the Wild West.   Justice Department charges Chinese Nationals in Anthem breach   The Justice Department has charged two Chinese nationals for hacking Anthem back in 2015 that affected some 78.8 million Americans. The DOJ says the hackers used “extremely sophisticated techniques” to hack into Anthem and three other companies. DOJ officials call it one of the worst attacks in U.S. history.   Amazon reports “extensive fraud” following merchant hack   Amazon reported that over 6 months last year, it was hit by what it termed an “extensive fraud” with hackers siphoning funds from merchant accounts.   Pew reports that Americans’ interest in social media is unchanged since 2018   Pew reports that despite all of the breaches, and hacks and problems in the tech sector and Facebook, in particular, Americans’ interest in tech remains unchanged compared to last year. Black and Hispanic adults’ use of YouTube exceeds that of Whites by 6 and 7 points respectively, with 78 and 77 percent saying they’ve ever used YouTube. Notably, Hispanic adults far outpace Whites on Instagram—by some 18 points, with 51 percent of Hispanics saying they’ve ever used the platform compared to just 33% of Whites. Blacks and Hispanics also far outpace Whites on WhatsApp, by 11 points and 29 points, respectively. You can find a link to the report in the show notes.   Uber drivers strike worldwide on day of IPO   Uber drivers around the world protested Uber and Lyft on the day of Uber’s IPO last week. The largest number of protestors, hundreds, appeared outside Uber’s headquarters in San Francisco. But the turnout in other cities around the world, were more modest. This underscores the difficulty of organizing in a company without a central company-wide email system that drivers can use to organize.   Oracle sues the Pentagon for offering jobs to DoD workers   Oracle is suing the Pentagon for eliminating it from a bidding process after Amazon allegedly offered a job to a Department of Defense employee for crafting the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure in a way that benefitted Amazon.   Fight over Airbnb regulation in DC intensifies   DC City Council member Phil Mendleson threatened DC Mayor Muriel Bowser on Twitter, saying that he would withhold building permits for government projects if the Mayor fails to implement a law designed to regulate short -term rentals like Airbnb. The Mayor’s office is saying the law may be unconstitutional because it limits owners of units that don’t actually reside at their property from sharing with renters for more than 90 days per year. The law is scheduled to take effect on October 1st.   Events  Tues., 5/15   If you’re in the Bay Area … New America 2020 Census: Everyone Counts 12:30-1:30 SPUR 1544 Broadway Oakland   FCC Webinar: Information for Older American Consumers 2PM-3PM   If you’re in New York … Politico’s Women Rule Networking Event The Future of Female Entrepreneurship 6PM-8PM tomorrow, Wed. May 15 New York This event has a high demand and the location isn’t public. But you can find the link to the interest list in the show notes.

Elie Honig is a CNN Legal Analyst who previously worked for 14 years as a federal and state prosecutor. He currently is Executive Director of the Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities and Special Counsel to the law firm Lowenstein Sandler, LLC. Honig served as Deputy Director, and then Director, of the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice from 2012 through 2018. While Director, Honig oversaw a staff of over 500 law enforcement professionals, including prosecutors, detectives, analysts and support staff. During his time as Director, the Division charged and prosecuted sweeping cases against street gangs, drug trafficking organizations, illegal firearms traffickers, corrupt public officials, child predators and white-collar corporate thieves. The Division also developed new practice areas aimed at emerging criminal threats including cybercrime, human trafficking, post-Sandy fraud and diversion of prescription painkillers. As Director, Hong spearheaded successful statewide policy initiatives focused on bail reform, police-involved shooting response, body-worn cameras, community policing, internal affairs, witness protection and deconfliction. Prior to joining the Division of Criminal Justice, Honig worked for eight years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, prosecuting and trying cases involving organized crime, human trafficking, public corruption, and violent crime. From 2010 through 2012, Honig served as Deputy Chief, and later Co-Chief, of the Organized Crime Unit. Honig successfully prosecuted over 100 members and associates of La Cosa Nostra, including Bosses and other high-ranking members of the Gamino and Genovese Organized Crime Families. As an Assistant United States Attorney, Honig tried 15 cases to jury verdict, and argued over 20 cases in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. From 2000 to 2004, Honig worked as an associate at the law firm Covington & Burling, in Washington, D.C. Honig obtained his undergraduate degree from Rutgers College in 1997, and his law degree from Harvard Law School in 2000. As a CNN Legal Analyst, Honig provides commentary and analysis on air and in print on breaking news relating to criminal justice, national security and other legal issues. Honig also is quoted regularly in outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Time, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Financial Times, Bloomberg, Business Insider and others. In this episode, Elie shares his one way ticket to February 14, 2004 - the day he got an official job offer to join the Southern District of New York US Attorneys Office. He also discusses legal issues of the day. Elie is just one of the dynamic guests featured on The One Way Ticket Show, where Host Steven Shalowitz explores with his guests where they would go if given a one way ticket, no coming back! Destinations may be in the past, present, future, real, imaginary or a state of mind. Steven's guests have included: Nobel Peace Prize Winner, President Jose Ramos-Horta; Legendary Talk Show Host, Dick Cavett; Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz; Fashion Expert, Tim Gunn; Broadcast Legend, Charles Osgood; International Rescue Committee President & CEO, David Miliband; Playwright, David Henry Hwang; Journalist-Humorist-Actor, Mo Rocca; SkyBridge Capital Founder & Co-Managing Partner, Anthony Scaramucci; Abercrombie & Kent Founder, Geoffrey Kent; Travel Expert, Pauline Frommer, as well as leading photographers, artists, chefs, writers, intellectuals and more.  

Welcome to Heels of Justice; these are the stories of women lawyers who are trailblazers in their field and paved the way for the rest of us. In this episode, Katherine talks to The Honorable Judge Diane Wood, the Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judge Wood is one of the most renowned federal judges in the country. She's also a pioneer in the field of an antitrust law, a University of Chicago law professor, a former Supreme Court law clerk, and a tireless champion of her own former clerks (including Katherine!).   Key Takeaways [:32] Katherine opens this edition of Heels of Justice with a list of the three biases she has towards today’s guest and introduces Chief Judge Diane Wood. [1:49] Judge Wood answers Katherine’s question as to why she thinks she is so inclined to build good mentoring relationships with her clerks. [2:54] What path eventually brought Judge Wood to law, and how she remembers her experience of law school. [6:55] Judge Diane Wood on her clerkship, the real number of applications she sent out, and the people who became lifelong friends. [14:24] The barely believable story of Judge Wood having her second child while being the first woman on the faculty at Chicago University Law School, and all of the great advances the experience led to. [20:05] What led Judge Wood to eventually become a pioneer of antitrust law? [25:33] Would Judge Wood have any advice for her young self? And advice for herself back in law school? [29:09] Judge Wood talks about the nominations for Supreme Court, the following disappointment, and overall positive side of the experience. [33:19] Katherine asks if Judge Wood has a memory of advocating for herself she would share. [36:07] Katherine thanks Chief Judge Diane Wood for participating on the Heels of Justice podcast, and she signs off until next time. That’s it for this episode of Heels of Justice, if you like the stories we’re telling, please visit our website. You can join our mailing list, learn more about our guests and see what we have planned for the future. You can also follow us on Twitter, on Instagram and on Facebook. Disclaimer: The opinions you have heard are ours or our guest’s alone. They’re not the opinions of our employers, or our clients, or our bosses, and not our husbands, kids or pets or anyone else’s.   Mentioned in this episode (chronological order) The University of Texas at Austin Covington & Burling LLP Washington DC The Friar Society at Texas University in Austin Justice Harry Blackmun Judith A. Miller Justice Potter Stewart Judge Susan E. Block Justice Thurgood Marshall Georgetown University Law Center Office of the Legal Advisor of the U.S. Department of State University of Chicago Law School U.S. Department of Justice’s John S. Sherman Award Sally Yates Judge Kosinsky case Justice Sonia Sotomayor Justice Stephen Breyer   More about the Heels of Justice, Sarita Venkat and Katherine Minarik Heels of Justice on the Web Heels of Justice on Twitter Heels of Justice on Instagram Heels of Justice on Facebook   Sarita Venkat on LinkedIn Katherine Minarik on LinkedIn Katherine Minarik on Twitter Katherine Minarik at cleverbridge   Judge Diane Wood’s personal stories (edited) “The treatment of women students then — and I’m afraid to say as now — was still a problem in the classroom. So maybe the most extreme version of it was one professor I had — a very well known professor in his field — who had decided it was ungentlemanly to call on women, so he just never called on the women in the class. They complained to him, and so he decided ‘well I just won’t call on anyone!’ So he would introduce a topic in the class, and if no one raised their hand to stop him, he would move on to the next topic!”   “The due date of this second child was mid-September, and classes were going to start October first, so I was a little worried about this. I contacted [the Dean] and I said ‘I’m expecting this baby, this is when the baby is due, and I really need you to assign me to a class I’ve taught before because it’s going to be hard for me to prepare a new class.’ — I look back on that now and I think what an idiot! I should’ve just said to him I'm not available to teach during the fall, we need to come up with some arrangement, but I knew no limits — so he said fine. And then he called my husband and said, what are we going to do about this pregnancy problem?”   “My first exposure to antitrust law was at Covington & Burling when I was a summer associate. The assignment they gave me was to examine a particular case and try to figure out whether the client was going to be in any particular trouble with respect to attempts to monopolize, which is one type of antitrust violation. And the lawyer who gave me the assignment said “Oh! And by the way, nobody understands what attempts to monopolize really are.” HA! So I went to the library, and got a bunch of books and toiled away both with the law and with the record in this case, which had been up and down in the courts a couple of times, it was one of these old, ‘last-forever’ antitrust cases. I recall writing a giant 75-page memo for them, going through practice by practice, which ones I thought — according to the standard that I understood for attempts to monopolize — would be a problem.”   More about Judge Diane Wood The American Law Institute The New York Times Reuters The Circuit Rider, December 2012

Today's Rapid Response episode takes a look at the just-released Law'd Awful Memo written by Attorney General nominee Bill Barr and sent to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein concerning the Mueller investigation.  Are the argument(s) raised in the memo any good?  What does this mean for the future of the Mueller investigation?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief foray into everyone's favorite show topic:  BASEBALL LAW!  Find out about the agreement reached between MLB and Cuba, and how (of course) Donald Trump can screw it up. After that, it's time for an Andrew Was Wrong (and Maybe Not Wrong) on David Pecker and AMI.  Along the way, we'll learn about the corruption case against Sun-Diamond Growers in connection with former Agriculture Secretary (and nearly-Senator) Mike Espy. Then, we delve deeply into the Barr memo, taking apart the legal "arguments" and featuring a guest appearance from one Antonin Scalia! Then, it's time to tackle the rather surprising decision by Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn sentencing phase.  What happened?  Did he go off the rails? After all that, we end with an all new Thomas (and Matt!) Takes The Bar Exam #106 on how to best transport heroin from Kansas City to Chicago and what the judge can instruct the jury... it's complicated, but you won't want to miss it!  And, as always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Check out Matt & Mattingly's Ice Cream Social podcast! Baseball law:  Here's the press release from MLB. We discussed U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Calfornia, 138 F.3d 961 (D.C. Cir. 1998), aff'd, 526 U.S. 398 (1999). Don't forget to read the Barr memo for yourself, and you can also check out the Wall Street Journal article that leaked it. ...And here's our good buddy Antonin Scalia smacking down the logic used therein. You can check out the government's sentencing memorandum in Michael Flynn's case as well as the memo filed by Covington & Burling on Flynn's behalf. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  [podcast src="https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8001044/height/360/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/preload/no/direction/forward/" height="360" width="100%" placement="bottom" theme="standard"] Download Link

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the scandal regarding Cambridge Analytica.  Is there a legal angle?  Have crimes been committed?  Listen and find out! In the pre-show segment, Andrew helps out our reporters by giving theme the question they need to be asking regarding Stormy Daniels, which is:  "Now that you’ve acknowledged that you’re DD, and you’ve sued Stormy Daniels for $20 million, can you tell us what claims you had against Ms. Daniels that you believe you settled in that agreement?  What could you have sued her for?"  You're welcome. That segues into the "A" segment, where the guys discuss the differences (and one strange overlap) between the recent lawsuit filed by Karen McDougal and the top-of-Yodel-Mountain Stormy Daniels lawsuit. After the main segment, we tackle a listener question regarding the difference between textualism and originalism, inspired by our most recent episode, Episode 157. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #68 that requires some math to figure out the appropriate measure of damages for breach of contract.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is the National Review article that actually gets Stormy's story right. Here's Mike Murphy's article expressing skepticism of CA's claims. This is the Price v. Facebook class action civil lawsuit, arising out of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.  And here's the statement from NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. If you wanted to set up a SuperPAC, Andrew's old pals at Covington & Burling have drafted a simple how-to guide for you. Finally, here's a hilarious Tweet from Peter Drice Wright that highlights a key problem with textualism. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In this episode we’re joined by Tim Stratford, managing partner of law firm Covington & Burling’s Beijing office, and Chris Adams, senior advisor at Covington & Burling. Both have previously held high-level government positions, with Stratford serving as Assistant U.S.-Trade Representative and Adams as Senior Coordinator for China Affairs at the Treasury Department, where he led the highest-level U.S.-China economic policy dialogues. In this episode we discuss recent U.S.-China trade tensions, what can be done to improve trade relations, and what U.S. businesses in China should be doing to minimize any associated negative impact. We’re also joined by co-host Ian Driscoll, communications director at AmCham Shanghai.

It might be enough to send missions to Pluto and practice in nuclear law for most professionals, but not Phil Rosenthal. In this report from On The Road, Evolve Law co-founder Jules Miller interviews Fastcase co-founder Phil Rosenthal about their mission to democratise the law and close the access to justice gap. Hear about his experiences at the Evolve Law Summit and why he believes the future is in good hands with today’s lawyerpreneurs. Phil Rosenthal is president, chairman, and a co-founder of Fastcase. Prior to that he worked as an attorney at Covington & Burling in Washington, where he concentrated in patent, nuclear and telecommunications law.

Harold Feld (@haroldfeld)  is Public Knowledge's Senior Vice President. Before becoming Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge, Harold worked as Senior Vice President of Media Access Project, advocating for the public interest in media, telecommunications, and technology policy for almost 10 years. Prior to joining MAP, Harold was an associate at Covington & Burling, worked on Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and accountability issues at the Department of Energy, and clerked for the D.C. Court of Appeals. He received his B.A. from Princeton University, and his J.D. from Boston University Law School. Harold also writes Tales of the Sausage Factory, a progressive blog on media and telecom policy. In 2007, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin praised him and his blog for "[doing] a lot of great work helping people understand how FCC decisions affect people and communities on the ground." In this episode, we discussed: early trends from the Ajit Pai FCC. what to expect on FCC reform from the 115th Congress. where consumer advocates and the Trump administration can find common ground. Resources Public Knowledge Slack The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith The Federalist Papers   NEWS ROUNDUP The Federal Trade Commission found last week that Vizio--the TV manufacturer--has been spying on its 11 million customers. The company had apparently been collecting and selling customers' locations, demographics and viewing habits. Vizio will now have to pay a $2.2 million settlement to the FTC and New Jersey Attorney General's office.  Hayley Tsukayama covers this in the Washington Post.--The Department of Homeland Security is considering requiring refugees and other immigrants from the 7 Muslim Ban countries to turn over their social media usernames and passwords before entering the United States. DHS Secretary John Kelly made the announcement last week before the House Committee on Homeland Security. But of course a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling last week which blocked the President's ban on refugees entering the country. Next steps include possible appeals to the full 9th Circuit, or to the U.S. Supreme Court. David Kravets has the story in Ars Technica.--The White House mysteriously let go its Chief Information Security Officer, Cory Louie, last week. Louie, who is Asian, had been appointed to the position by former President Obama and was one of the few minorities on Trump's staff. Check out Zack Whittaker's coverage in ZD Net.--A federal grand jury has indicted the National Security Agency contractor accused of stealing highly sensitive materials from the United States government, which he then collected at his Maryland home. Harold Thomas Martin faces up to 200 years in prison if convicted of all 20 criminal counts he has been charged with. Dustin Volz covers this for Reuters.--The House passed last week the Email Privacy Act, which would update existing law to require law enforcement to get a search warrant before asking technology companies for their users' emails. The bill is expected to get some resistance in the Senate. Dustin Volz has this story as well, in Reuters.--Benjamin Herold reports for Ed Week that the Ajit Pai FCC has rescinded a report the previous administration put out illustrating the success of the E-rate program. The E-rate program is a multi-billion dollar initiative designed to help schools and libraries access high speed internet service. Democratic leaders as well as consumer and tech advocates took Pai to task accusing Pai of paying lip service to the digital divide, while pursuing contradictory policies.--Finally, Amazon expressed serious concerns Friday about President Trump's "America First" agenda. The company said this more protectionist attitude has the potential to harm its business. Jeffrey Dastin has the story in Reuters.

For all of his many contributions to modern American jurisprudence, no area of law bears Justice Scalia's imprint more than administrative law. Indeed, he dedicated his entire career to it: from teaching at Virginia and Chicago, to serving in the Ford Administration, to his regulatory policy and legal writings at the American Enterprise Institute, to his service on the D.C. Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, he left a body of work unmatched by any modern Supreme Court justice. Whether writing in defense of particular doctrine or in criticism of it, his opinions and essays fundamentally shaped modern administrative law. Yet even late in his career, he continued to reflect and rethink his views, especially on questions such as Chevron deference and Seminole Rock deference. This panel collects some of the nation's most significant administrative law minds, to reflect on his legacy and evolution. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Prof. E. Donald Elliott, Senior of Counsel at Covington & Burling, Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School; and Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Introduction: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC.

Legal technology has changed since 1999, when Ed Walters and Phil Rosenthal founded the legal research service Fastcase—but not as much as they’d like. Phil Rosenthal and Ed Walters are the founders of the legal research service Fastcase. They were associates with Covington & Burling when they started the company in 1999.

Legal technology has changed since 1999, when Ed Walters and Phil Rosenthal founded the legal research service Fastcase—but not as much as they’d like. Phil Rosenthal and Ed Walters are the founders of the legal research service Fastcase. They were associates with Covington & Burling when they started the company in 1999.

Recently, the legal publishing company Fastcase received a takedown notice from the parent company of another publishing company, Casemaker, claiming they had exclusive rights to distribute, for commercial use, the Georgia Administrative Rules and Regulations. Fastcase CEO Ed Walters was surprised by this demand, because public law is not copyrightable. As a response, Ed decided to initiate litigation with Casemaker for the rights to the regulations and also to set a countrywide precedent. But why did Casemaker think they had exclusive rights to these Georgia laws in the first place? In this episode of The Digital Edge, Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway interview Ed Walters about the case, why he thinks keeping public law in the public domain is so important, and the history of law citations, annotations, and publication. Topics include: The verbiage in Casemaker's takedown notice to Fastcase Contracts with the Secretary of State of Georgia and other states The importance of having a federal court declare that private publishers can't own the law The history of laws published with citations, annotations, or editorial enhancements How the digitalization of laws has changed the publishing landscape What happens when a state designates a version of the code as official (even if it was published by a private company like LexisNexis) What will happen next with the Casemaker/Fastcase lawsuit Ed Walters is the CEO and co-founder of Fastcase, a legal publishing company based in Washington D.C. Before working at Fastcase, he was a lawyer at Covington & Burling in Washington D.C. and Brussels. Ed also teaches The Law of Robots at Georgetown University Law Center. Special thanks to our sponsors, ServeNow, CloudMask, and Scorpion.

This week on CounterSpin, a sort of theme show on how media cover government corruption disguised as business as usual. First up: A Wisconsin court has just handed Gov. Scott Walker a “big victory,” headlines in the Washington Post and elsewhere declared. One might've hoped they'd lead with what the ruling–about Walker's abuse of campaign finance rules–did for democracy and the public's right to know who's paying what to whom in public office. We'll talk with Brendan Fischer, general counsel at the Center for Media and Democracy, about what just happened in Wisconsin. Also on the show: The sense is that the joke is on anyone who's at all surprised to see former US Attorney General Eric Holder miss nary a beat going from investigating big financial interests to representing them at law firm Covington & Burling. Elite media's utter lack of interest in the move suggests that outrage is outre, but how might journalists talk about this sort of democracy-mocking shenanigan without normalizing it? Reporter Lee Fang writes for The Intercept and The Nation, among other outlets. He's followed the revolving door for years; we'll talk with him about that. The post CounterSpin – July 24, 2015 appeared first on KPFA.

Philip K. Howard is a prominent attorney and commentator. He's the Founder and Chair of Common Good and author of the classic, "The Death of Common Sense" and author of the new book, "The Rule of Nobody: Saving America from Dead Laws and Broken Government.”   Howard discusses whether it's worth it for people to trust the government. He shares his thoughts on how the government has made people inept.    Howard believes legal rigidity strangles common sense solutions to our problems. The Constitution was drafted in only 10 pages, yet so many modern bills are thousands of pages long. Howard explains how life would be without lawyers.   Philip K. Howard is a well-known leader of government and legal reform in America. His new book, The Rule of Nobody (W. W. Norton & Company, April 2014), has been praised by Fareed Zakaria as “an utterly compelling and persuasive book that, if followed, could change the way America works.” His Ted Talk has has been viewed by almost 500,000 people.     Philip is also the author of the best-seller The Death of Common Sense (Random House, 1995), The Collapse of the Common Good (Ballantine Books, 2002) and Life Without Lawyers (W. W. Norton & Company, 2009).     In 2002, Philip formed Common Good, a nonpartisan national coalition dedicated to restoring common sense to America. Philip writes periodically for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and has appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the News Hour, Today, Good Morning America, Charlie Rose, and numerous other programs.     The son of a minister, Philip got his start working summers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner and has been active in public affairs his entire adult life. He is a prominent civic leader in New York City and has advised national political leaders on legal and regulatory reform for fifteen years, including Vice President Al Gore and numerous governors. He is a Partner at the law firm Covington & Burling, LLP. He is a graduate of Yale College and the University of Virginia Law School, and lives in Manhattan with his wife Alexandra. They have four children.   Find out more about Philip K. Howard at www.philipkhoward.com.    Visit Common Good at www.commongood.org.

Raffaela Wakeman interviews Covington & Burling partner Mark Plotkin on private sector national security law.

Stop and Frisk, Jim Crow By Another Name? Join The Gist of Freedom Sunday June 10th at 8pm~ Listen to Constitutional Law Professor, Gloria Browne-Marshall as she lectures on Stop and Frisk and gives us an update on Zimmerman's latest arrest and Trayvon's Road to Justice.  On May 16, a federal judge granted class Action Lawsuit (certification in a lawsuit) challenging the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk practices as unconstitutional and racially discriminatory.  The ruling will allow all persons unlawfully stopped and frisked since January 2005 to be plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are represented by the Center of Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the law firms of Beldock, Levine, and Hoffman and Covington & Burling, LLP.  Gloria J. Browne-Marshall received the Ida B. Wells-Barnett Justice Award for her work with civil rights and women's justice issues.  A former civil rights attorney, Browne-Marshall is an Associate Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) teaching Constitutional Law, Race and the Law, and Evidence. She is a member of the Gender Studies faculty of John Jay College as well as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. A free-lance journalist and an award-winning playwright, her most recent play is titled "Diversity" and examines marriage choices.  She is a member of the Dramatist Guild, Mystery Writers of America, National Association of Black Journalists, and PEN American Center. Gloria J. Browne-Marshall is the Founder/Director of The Law and Policy Group, Inc.,