Podcasts about eighth circuit

education joe biden missouri edt case no usca eighth circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 25, 2024

Administrative Law: May the Department of Education forgive approximately $475 billion in federal-student-loan debt by altering the rules for income-based repayment? - Argued: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:17:10 EDT

Legal News for Tues 10/8 - SCOTUS Hears Prescription Pet Food Claims, FTX Plans to Repay Billions, EPA New Timeline for Lead Pipe Replacement and State Film Production Tax Credits Stink

court supreme court cincinnati st louis brett kavanaugh appeals clarence thomas samuel alito justices civil rights act justice thomas title vii elena kagan eighth circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2024 7:07

This Day in Legal History: Great Chicago FireOn October 8, 1871, the Great Chicago Fire ignited, marking one of the most devastating urban disasters in U.S. history. The fire burned for two days, fueled by dry conditions and wooden structures that dominated the cityscape. It destroyed over three square miles of Chicago, killing around 300 people and leaving 100,000 residents homeless. In the aftermath, the catastrophe highlighted the dangers of poor urban planning and inadequate fire-prevention measures.The devastation led to a complete overhaul of building codes and fire safety regulations. Chicago introduced stricter fire-resistant building requirements, mandating the use of materials like brick, stone, and iron instead of wood for new construction. The city also improved its firefighting infrastructure, investing in modernized equipment and more efficient water systems.These reforms had a ripple effect across the country, influencing urban development nationwide. Many U.S. cities adopted similar codes, fundamentally reshaping fire safety standards. Today, much of modern building regulations, including fire codes that require sprinkler systems and fireproof materials, can trace their origins back to the lessons learned from the Great Chicago Fire of October 8, 1871. The event is a lasting reminder of how disasters can drive lasting legal and regulatory changes.The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments over whether a federal court can continue to oversee a consumer class action against Royal Canin and Purina after the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to remove federal claims. The case involves claims from pet owners who argue that the companies misled them into believing prescription pet food was required and conspired to inflate prices. Initially filed in Missouri state court, the case moved to federal court after Purina's request. The companies' attorney, Katie Wellington, argued that federal jurisdiction should remain despite changes to the lawsuit, citing Congress's codification of supplemental jurisdiction principles. However, justices like Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism, questioning whether a prior version of the lawsuit, no longer relevant, should dictate jurisdiction. Both seemed to support the companies argument initially but appeared to reconsider after hearing from the consumers' attorney, Ashley Keller, who maintained that the Eighth Circuit correctly returned the case to state court.The case's procedural history, including its back-and-forth between courts, complicates the jurisdictional question. The justices appeared to struggle with balancing precedents and whether altering the claims should impact the court where the case is heard. The broader question hinges on civil procedure and jurisdiction when a lawsuit is amended post-removal from state to federal court.The concept of supplemental jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to retain jurisdiction over state law claims if a case initially involves federal claims, even if the federal issues are later removed is central to the companies' argument.Supreme Court Wrestles With Venue in Prescription Pet Food FightFTX has received court approval to begin repaying billions of dollars to customers after its bankruptcy plan was approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey. The plan allows FTX to use up to $16.5 billion in recovered assets to repay customers affected by the crypto exchange's collapse. Under the plan, 98% of customers with claims of $50,000 or less will be repaid within 60 days of the plan's activation. FTX's bankruptcy was triggered by founder Sam Bankman-Fried's misappropriation of customer funds to cover risky bets made by his hedge fund, Alameda Research. Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and FTX has been recovering assets ever since.FTX will prioritize customer repayments over claims from U.S. government agencies like the IRS and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The company has worked with global liquidators and settled various disputes to move forward with repayments. Some customers, however, are unhappy with the repayment structure, citing the rise in cryptocurrency prices since 2022, which they feel should be reflected in their recovery amounts. Despite these objections, FTX argues that it is not feasible to return the same crypto assets, as they were largely misappropriated.FTX cleared to repay billions to customers after bankruptcy plan approval | ReutersThe EPA has finalized the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), mandating an accelerated replacement of lead service lines in drinking water systems. The new rule requires replacing 10% of lead pipes annually over a decade, up from the previous 3%, with the process beginning in 2027. The EPA estimates that up to 9 million lead pipes remain in use across the U.S., posing significant health risks, especially to children. The rule also lowers the lead action level in drinking water from 0.015 to 0.010 milligrams per liter, triggering faster public notifications and filter distribution when lead is detected.The effort is backed by $15 billion from the 2021 infrastructure law, along with additional funding from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. It closes loopholes allowing extended replacement times and pressures homeowners to replace privately owned lead pipes. The rule reflects the Biden administration's emphasis on clean water as a priority, though legal challenges to the LCRI are expected. EPA Administrator Michael Regan reiterated that no level of lead in drinking water is safe due to its severe health impacts.EPA to Finalize Mass Lead Drinking Water Pipe Replacement PlanAnd in my column for Bloomberg this week, I talk a bit about a favorite bugbear of mine: film production tax incentives.California is losing its dominance in the film industry as productions move to other states and countries offering more attractive tax incentives. While expanding California's film tax credits might seem like an immediate solution, this approach could worsen the competition among states, leading to a "race to the bottom" in offering incentives. Instead, the state should focus on long-term solutions such as investing in infrastructure, green initiatives, and workforce development. These investments would create lasting economic benefits, rather than the temporary boosts provided by film tax credits.Tax credits for film productions have proven costly, with minimal sustained economic impact. Jobs created during productions are often short-lived, and sometimes the credits are sold, benefiting entities with no connection to the state. In contrast, California could use tax incentives to build shared production facilities and promote eco-friendly practices, lowering production costs and attracting filmmakers.Additionally, tying tax credits to workforce development through partnerships with educational institutions could create a skilled labor force within California. This would help sustain the industry locally while reducing the state's reliance on temporary incentives to compete with other regions. By investing in long-term infrastructure and labor, California can rebuild its film industry more sustainably. California Should Look Beyond Film Tax Credits to Boost Industry 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

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Supreme Court Opinions

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 30, 2024 24:37

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Muldrow v City of St. Louis. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a signification disadvantage? The case was decided on April 17, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. Although the judgment vacating and remanding the case was unanimous, Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court, which was joined by five other Justices. Nothing in Title VII's text requires a transferred employee to show that the harm they suffered was “significant.” Rather, as long as the transfer left the employee worse off in some way with respect to their employment terms or conditions, and was made because of a protected characteristic like sex or race, it violates Title VII's prohibition on discrimination. There is no basis for reading a heightened “significant harm” standard into the statute. Title VII targets employment practices that treat a person worse because of a protected trait, without distinguishing between significant and less significant harms. While concerns about frivolous lawsuits are valid, courts have other ways to dismiss meritless claims without imposing an extra-textual "significant harm" requirement. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment suggesting that the majority misinterpreted the opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, below. Justice Thomas argued that the appeals court's language requiring “a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage” is not a heightened-harm requirement. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment criticizing the majority for failing to clarify the degree of harm required under Title VII, arguing that there is “little if any substantive difference between the terminology the Court approves and the terminology it doesn't like.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing that while he agrees with the majority in rejecting the “significant employment disadvantage” requirement, he disagrees with its new standard requiring “some harm.” Justice Kavanaugh provided an example of a situation that clearly violates Title VII but may not satisfy the majority's “some harm” requirement: “We are transferring you to the Cincinnati office because you are black. But your compensation will not change.” Any transfer on a discriminatory basis—no matter how quantifiable the harm—should be a violation of Title VII. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

USCA, Eighth Circuit Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird, Case No. 24-2263

united states movement iowa migrant edt case no usca eighth circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 27, 2024

Federalism: May Iowa criminalize illegal re-entry into the United States? - Argued: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:18:33 EDT

DOJ vs Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act: Round 2, Feds Win

Path to Liberty

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 30, 2024 30:52

The feds just won round two against Missouri's 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. But here's the kicker - they didn't say it's unconstitutional for what it does, but for the words it uses. In this episode, get a full breakdown of what happened in the Eighth Circuit - and the very clear path to liberty going forward. The post DOJ vs Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act: Round 2, Feds Win first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

missouri round 2 doj preservation feds second amendment tenth amendment center eighth circuit

The Gutowski Files: Campaign Gun Politics and Pistol Brace Ruling

Active Self Protection Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 13, 2024 32:22

On this installment of the Gutowski Files we sit down with investigative reporter Stephen Gutowski of thereload.com and discuss recent statements from President Trump on how being shot with an AR-15 might have changed his outlook on them and we talk about a recent Eighth Circuit decision regarding pistol brace bans. Active Self Protection exists to help good, sane, sober, moral, prudent people in all walks of life to more effectively protect themselves and their loved ones from criminal violence. On the ASP Podcast you will hear the true stories of life or death self defense encounters from the men and women that lived them. If you are interested in the Second Amendment, self defense and defensive firearms use, martial arts or the use of less lethal tools used in the real world to defend life and family, you will find this show riveting. Join host and career federal agent Mike Willever as he talks to real life survivors and hear their stories in depth. You'll hear about these incidents and the self defenders from well before the encounter occurred on through the legal and emotional aftermath. Music: bensound.com

music donald trump politics guns campaign brace files ruling second amendment pistol gutowski eighth circuit stephen gutowski active self protection

EY ITTS Washington Dispatch, July 2024

Ernst & Young ITS Washington Dispatch

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 12, 2024 19:43

A monthly review of US international tax-related developments. In this edition: US Congress begins August recess – US Supreme Court overrules Chevron deference to agency regulations – US appellate court rules NR's gain from sale of its US partnership interest attributable to inventory is not US source income – IRS final Section 367(b) regs address certain cross-border triangular reorgs, inbound nonrecognition transactions – IRS officials offer update on CAMT, PTEP guidance – IRS and Medtronic file Eighth Circuit appellate briefs arguing for different transfer pricing methods – IRS official says corporations failing to respond to TP compliance letters referred for possible examination – G20 Finance Ministers, Central Bank Governors reiterate support for BEPS 2.0 – Inclusive Framework on BEPS finalizing MLC to implement Pillar One Amount A, Amount B consensus near – OECD releases sixth edition of Corporate Tax Statistics publication, Draft User Guide for GloBE Info Return XML Schema.

washington irs us supreme court chevron us congress oecd dispatch nr tp medtronic mlc beps eighth circuit camt g20 finance ministers central bank governors itts

Legal News for Tues 7/30 - $79m Attorneys Fee Overturned, Big Law Ethical Dilemma in BK, ex-NRA LaPierre Banned, ABA AI Guidelines and New Online Child Safety Policies

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 30, 2024 7:55

This Day in Legal History: Medicare Bill SignedOn July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law, marking a significant milestone in American healthcare. This landmark legislation, part of Johnson's Great Society programs, aimed to address the healthcare needs of the nation's elderly population. With the stroke of his pen, Johnson established Medicare, a federal program providing comprehensive health insurance to Americans aged 65 and older. The bill was signed at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with former President Harry S. Truman by Johnson's side, recognizing Truman's early efforts to promote national health insurance.Medicare went into effect the following year, in 1966, offering hospital and medical insurance to millions of senior citizens. This historic act transformed the landscape of healthcare in the United States, ensuring that older Americans would no longer face financial ruin due to medical expenses. Medicare's introduction also set the stage for future expansions, including the addition of prescription drug coverage and the establishment of Medicare Advantage plans. Over the decades, Medicare has become a cornerstone of the U.S. healthcare system, providing vital health services to millions of Americans and significantly reducing poverty among the elderly. The signing of the Medicare bill remains a pivotal moment in the pursuit of healthcare equity in the United States.A federal appeals court overturned a $79 million attorneys' fee award in T-Mobile US Inc.'s $350 million settlement of a data breach lawsuit. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the lower court abused its discretion by approving an excessive fee award in a case that settled quickly and without extensive legal proceedings. The court reversed the fee award, reinstated the objection of class member Cassie Hampe, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The litigation stemmed from a 2021 data breach affecting 76.6 million people, with settlement approval sought in July 2022. Judge Brian C. Wimes initially approved the fee award in June 2023, dismissing objections from Hampe and Connie Pentz as abusive. However, the appeals court found no evidence of bad faith or extortion by Hampe and criticized the lower court for not adjusting the fee award based on the hours worked by class counsel. The court noted that class counsel's fee request amounted to an hourly rate of $7,000 to $9,500, deemed unreasonable. The case was sent back for further consideration, with the involvement of multiple law firms representing the parties.T-Mobile Deal's $79 Million Attorneys' Fee Award Gets OverturnedBig Law firms are reevaluating their strategies following a ruling in the Eastern District of Virginia that barred Vinson & Elkins from representing wood-pellet maker Enviva Inc. in its bankruptcy due to a conflict of interest with private equity firm Riverstone Investment Group LLC. This decision has raised concerns about potential conflicts when firms represent both private equity sponsors and their distressed portfolio companies in Chapter 11 proceedings. The ruling could force law firms to choose between lucrative private equity deals and bankruptcy cases, potentially reshaping their business models.The court rejected Vinson & Elkins' proposal to separate their work for Riverstone and Enviva, citing ethical concerns. This outcome could lead to more aggressive challenges by the US Trustee and might require law firms to adopt stricter conflict management practices. Although some view the decision as specific to the case's facts, it signals a need for firms to better navigate ethical responsibilities.The ruling has already influenced how law firms approach bankruptcy cases involving private equity-backed companies, with future decisions possibly reaching higher courts for further clarification. Despite this, experts like Nancy Rapoport and Bruce A. Markell believe that Big Law firms will adapt and continue to thrive by finding compliant ways to manage conflicts of interest.Big Law Confronts Tail Risk Threat to Private Equity BankruptcyA New York state judge has ruled against appointing an outside monitor for the National Rifle Association (NRA) but banned former CEO Wayne LaPierre from serving as an officer or director for ten years. The decision by Justice Joel Cohen of the Manhattan Supreme Court comes from a four-year-old civil case initiated by state Attorney General Letitia James. Although a mixed outcome, the ruling followed a trial stage where jurors found LaPierre and others guilty of financial mismanagement, including funding LaPierre's lavish lifestyle. LaPierre was ordered to repay $4.35 million to the NRA, and former finance chief Wilson Phillips was ordered to repay $2 million.James sued the NRA in August 2020, citing greed, poor oversight, and cronyism. Following the ruling, both parties were directed to negotiate governance changes that could reduce the NRA's board size and facilitate new board candidacies. Despite the lawsuit, the NRA has perceived the case as politically motivated. The NRA, founded in 1871, has seen its influence wane, including within the Republican Party, as its membership and revenue have declined. NRA President Bob Barr acknowledged the jury's findings and reiterated the organization's commitment to good governance. LaPierre, who resigned just before the trial's first stage, has not commented on the ruling.Judge won't require monitor for NRA, bans ex-chief LaPierre for 10 years | ReutersThe American Bar Association (ABA) has issued its first formal ethics opinion on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by lawyers, emphasizing the need for adherence to ethical obligations. The ABA's ethics and professional responsibility committee highlighted that lawyers must ensure competence, protect client confidentiality, communicate appropriately, and handle fees ethically when utilizing AI technology. While AI can enhance efficiency in legal tasks such as research, document drafting, and analysis, it also poses risks like producing inaccurate results. Lawyers are advised to prevent unintended disclosure of client information and consider informing clients about their use of AI tools. The ABA's opinion serves as guidance for interpreting model rules, although these are not binding. The opinion cautioned against relying on AI-generated outputs without verification, noting instances where lawyers have cited nonexistent cases or inaccurate analyses, leading to potential misrepresentations in court.Recent cases illustrate the consequences of unverified AI use, with a federal judge in Virginia considering sanctions for a filing that included fictitious cases and fabricated quotations. While some courts require lawyers to disclose their use of AI, others, like the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, have declined to adopt such rules.State bar associations have also been developing their own AI guidelines, recognizing the rapidly evolving nature of the technology. The ABA anticipates ongoing updates to their guidance to keep pace with developments in AI.Lawyers using AI must heed ethics rules, ABA says in first formal guidance | ReutersThe U.S. Senate is poised to pass significant online child safety reforms through two bills: the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). These reforms aim to enhance protections for minors on social media platforms. COPPA 2.0 will prohibit targeted advertising to minors, restrict data collection without consent, and allow parents and children to delete their information from social media. KOSA will establish a "duty of care" for social media companies to design safer platforms for minors.Despite bipartisan support in the Senate, with an 86-1 procedural vote, the bills face uncertainty in the Republican-controlled House, currently on recess until September. While some social media executives support KOSA, others, including leaders from Meta and TikTok, have expressed concerns. Critics, including tech industry groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the bills could limit access to important content for minors.In response to these concerns, the bill's language was amended, reducing the enforcement role of state attorneys general. Supporters like Josh Golin of Fairplay for Kids argue that KOSA targets specific risks, such as promoting harmful content, without granting legal grounds for government censorship. The legislation's future now hinges on approval in the House of Representatives.US Senate set to pass major online child safety reforms | 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

NCLA Asks Eighth Circuit to Reject Blanket Immunity for Federally Cross-Deputized State Police Officer

americans cross immunity police officers reject blanket jenin state police federally vec eighth circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 20, 2024 12:30

NCLA's amicus brief in Mohamud v. Weyker takes on a dangerous trend of courts shielding cross-deputized officers from accountability. This critical case argues that Americans should still have the right to pursue damages for constitutional violations, even when officers are operating under both state and federal authority. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by NCLA's Casey Norman to unpack the implications of this high-stakes legal battle and how this case is pivotal for holding law enforcement accountable.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Learning to Disagree: A Conversation with John Inazu

Faithful Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2024 52:22

Send us a Text Message.In this episode of the Faithful Politics podcast, Josh Burtram and Will Wright interview John Inazu, the Callie D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis. Inazu discusses his new book, Learning to Disagree, which explores the importance of understanding and navigating disagreements in a pluralistic society. The book, structured around an academic calendar, combines memoir and practical advice, aiming to help readers handle disagreements constructively in their daily lives.Inazu emphasizes the importance of empathy, patience, and forgiveness in managing disagreements, noting that these skills are crucial in both personal and societal contexts. He argues that the best lawyers win cases by deeply understanding the opposing side, and similarly, individuals can manage conflicts better by genuinely listening and trying to understand others' perspectives. Inazu also discusses the challenges of engaging in hard conversations, particularly those involving deeply personal or moral issues like LGBTQ rights.The discussion touches on the role of law in ensuring fairness and protecting civil liberties, highlighting how legal frameworks help manage societal disagreements without resorting to violence. Inazu also critiques the current state of political discourse, exacerbated by media partisanship, and suggests practical strategies for individuals to diversify their news sources and engage in more constructive conversations.Finally, Inazu advises focusing on long-term relationships and investing in institutions that facilitate ongoing dialogue and understanding, stressing that meaningful change and deeper understanding require sustained effort and commitment.Buy the book: Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect https://a.co/d/etmnvrgGuest Bio:John Inazu's scholarship focuses on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, and related questions of legal and political theory. His books include Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly (Yale University Press, 2012) and Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference (University of Chicago Press, 2016; paperback 2018). Inazu is the special editor of a volume on law and theology published in Law and Contemporary Problems and co-editor (with Tim Keller) of Uncommon Ground: Living Faithfully in a World of Difference (Thomas Nelson, 2020). His articles have appeared in a number of law reviews and specialty journals, and he has written broadly for mainstream audiences in publications including the Atlantic, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Prior to law teaching, Inazu clerked for Judge Roger L. Wollman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and served for four years as an associate general counsel with the Department of the Air Force at the Pentagon.Support the Show.To learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics Subscribe to our Substack: https://faithfulpolitics.substack.com/

world learning conversations law religion lgbtq respect court empathy atlantic washington post air force usa today substack pentagon text messages los angeles times disagree first amendment appeals washington university tim keller chicago press will wright john inazu eighth circuit contemporary problems inazu confident pluralism surviving refuge the forgotten freedom

NCLA Asks Eighth Circuit to Vacate SEC's Unconstitutional New Climate Disclosure Rules

business climate commerce sec chamber disclosure appeals national center unconstitutional jenin vacate texas association public policy research gibson dunn eighth circuit eighth circuit court ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 22, 2024 12:30

NCLA has filed a joint opening brief in National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC, urging the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down new SEC rules requiring extensive climate-related disclosures by public companies. This challenge is combined with U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, where Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents the petitioners. NCLA represents the National Center for Public Policy Research alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Texas Association of Business, and Longview Chamber of Commerce, arguing against the SEC's unconstitutional push for climate activism at the expense of civil liberties. Mark, Jenin, and Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris discuss the case in their latest episode.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

USCA, Eighth Circuit Walmsley v. FTC, Case No. 23-2687

edt walmsley case no usca eighth circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 17, 2024

Administrative Law: May Congress delegate rule-making authority to a private entity where a federal agency is given post hoc review? - Argued: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 9:30:11 EDT

Missouri's Legal Fight Against China Continues with Sean Mirski and Aaron Sobel

The Lawfare Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 14, 2024 45:50

On today's episode, Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Sean Mirski and Aaron Sobel of Arnold & Porter. Mirski practices foreign-relations, international, and appellate law, and Sobel practices international and appellate law. They discussed Mirski and Sobel's recent Lawfare piece, co-authored with John Bellinger and Catherine McCarthy, on the Eighth Circuit's decision reviving part of Missouri's coronavirus-related lawsuit against several defendants connected to the Chinese government.They spoke about the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Missouri's claims and why one of them survived the Eighth Circuit's jurisdictional review, how this decision might affect other coronavirus lawsuits, and the potential implications of the decision for U.S. foreign policy, among other topics.Check out Mirski's recent book, “We May Dominate the World: Ambition, Anxiety, and the Rise of the American Colossus,” which examines the roots of the United States' ascension to hegemony and was rated by Kirkus as one of the 100 best non-fiction books of 2023.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

united states china anxiety chinese legal missouri acast research fellows lawfare sobel kirkus eighth circuit foreign sovereign immunities act john bellinger

USCA, Eighth Circuit GLBT Youth in IA Schools v. Reynolds, Case No. 24-1075

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 14, 2024

Free Speech: May a state ban public school libraries from carrying books that contain depictions of "sex acts"? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:1:3 EDT

youth schools reynolds edt glbt case no usca eighth circuit

USCA, Eighth Circuit GEICO v. MO, Case No. 23-1686

insurance edt geico case no usca eighth circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 13, 2024

Insurance: Is having sex a clearly foreseeable use of an automobile? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:53:57 EDT

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Uphold a Small Business's Right to Judicial Review

board court supreme court small business federal reserve appeals governors judicial uphold federal reserve system michael showalter vec eighth circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later May 20, 2024 12:30

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Corner Post's lawsuit challenging a Federal Reserve regulation, ruling that the six-year statute of limitations to challenge the rule had already expired. However, Corner Post did not exist until more than six years after the rule issued, and it filed suit less than four years after opening for business. The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus curiae brief in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the lawsuit to go forward in such circumstances and protect judicial review. In this episode, Mark and Vec discuss the case and a recent article by Michael Showalter in the Federalist Society Review. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Standing and Section 2: Does Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Provide a Private Right of Action?

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 26, 2024 59:05

In 2021, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, private litigants sued to challenge the Arkansas state House redistricting map as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting the vote of racial minorities. In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not grant a private right of action. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court holding, and in 2024, the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing of the case en banc. In this panel, three voting rights practitioners will provide their analysis of the Voting Rights Act, the Eighth Circuit's decision, and the implications of this decision on redistricting and voting rights cases. Featuring: J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General, The State of Arkansas Jeffrey Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School & Senior Fellow, New York Census and Redistricting Institute (Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney

Advocating for Impact: 340B State Laws Win Big in Court

ASHPOfficial

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 16, 2024 28:51

In November 2021, Arkansas enacted a law, known as Act 1103, that prohibited drugmakers from placing restrictions on 340B contract pharmacies and child sites. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) immediately filed suit to block implementation of Act 1103, delaying enforcement of the law for nearly 2 years. However, on March 12, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected PhRMA's arguments and ruled Act 1103 is valid and enforceable. In the podcast, we talk about the implications of the ruling for the broader 340B program and covered entities nationwide. The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

court act arkansas advocating appeals manufacturers win big state laws 340b pharmaceutical research eighth circuit phrma ashp

New Federal and State Legislative Movement on 340B

340B Insight

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2024 21:51

The 340B community has seen major activity on several fronts since the start of 2024 – the introduction of new legislation on Capitol Hill, movement on legislation in the states, and key developments in the courts. 340B Health President and CEO Maureen Testoni returns to the show to help us make sense of these developments and how they might affect stakeholders.Federal bills could help covered entities but also limit 340B's scope One new bill introduced in the House of Representatives would restore access for covered entities to 340B pricing through their community and specialty pharmacies, as well as protecting access to discounted pricing at in-house pharmacies. The bill would tackle drug company restrictions that have been in place for nearly four years by authorizing the government to impose civil monetary penalties for drug companies that cut off this access.But another draft bill under discussion in the U.S. Senate could have more mixed effects on covered entities. The Senate legislation would address the community and specialty pharmacy dispute, but it also could include additional provisions that would limit hospital eligibility for 340B and the types of patients that could receive 340B drugs. 340B Health was among the many stakeholder groups that submitted comments on the Senate bill discussion draft.Major ruling by federal court is a big win for 340B advocatesThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled in favor of an Arkansas law that protects covered entity access to 340B discounts through specialty and community pharmacies. The pharmaceutical industry had sued to try to block the law in Arkansas as well as a similar law that Louisiana recently enacted. The decision will apply to any additional states within the Eighth Circuit jurisdiction that might enact their own 340B protections. Other federal appeals courts hearing drug industry challenges also will take note of this decision when considering those lawsuits.West Virginia becomes the third state to protect 340B pharmacy accessThe West Virginia governor recently signed into law a new 340B law that closely resembles the statute on the books in Louisiana. 340B hospitals in the state had worked closely with state lawmakers to advocate for the measure and drive it toward enactment. More than 20 states are considering such legislation during their current legislative sessions, so the number of states with 340B pharmacy access laws on the books could grow before the end of the year. Check out all of our episodes on the 340B Insight podcast website. You also can stay updated on all 340B Health news and information by visiting our homepage. If you have any questions you'd like us to cover in this podcast, email us at podcast@340bhealth.org.ResourcesHouse Bill Would End Drugmakers' 340B Contract Pharmacy RestrictionsLearn How Stakeholders Weighed in on Draft Senate 340B BillFederal Appeals Court Upholds Arkansas Contract Pharmacy LawWest Virginia Bans Drugmakers' Contract Pharmacy Restrictions

house movement court louisiana arkansas senate federal west virginia capitol hill pharmacy appeals legislative pharmaceuticals 340b eighth circuit

USCA, Eighth Circuit Brandt v. Griffin, Case No. 23-2681

brandt edt case no usca eighth circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 12, 2024

Civil Rights: May states prohibit minors from receiving gender transition procedures? - Argued: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:26:27 EDT

Courthouse Steps Decision: Pulsifer v. United States

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 27, 2024 46:23

In Pulsifer v. United States, the Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?". Key to that question was the meaning of the word "and" in the statute, as the Court was asked to consider whether text and context required "and" in this case be read to mean "or". Oral argument was heard on October 2, 2023, and judgment was rendered in favor of the government (affirming the 8th Circuit's decision) on March 15, 2024. The decision split the Court 6-3, with Justice Kagan authoring the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch authored a dissent, which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.In the wake of this decision, join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision Forum as we discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

united states court decision supreme court oral senior fellow circuit litigation reddy neil gorsuch courthouse elena kagan eighth circuit criminal law & procedure

USCA, Eighth Circuit Griner v. King, Case No. 22-3623

edt griner case no usca eighth circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2024

Intellectual Property: Does a political campaign's use of a meme without the permission of the meme's creator violate copyright? - Argued: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 9:35:23 EDT

SCOTUS Declares the Federal Government Subject to Suit Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

board supreme court federal reserve scotus suit subject federal government governors declares federal reserve system vec fair credit reporting act eighth circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2024 12:30

The Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Corner Post's lawsuit challenging a Federal Reserve regulation, ruling that the six-year statute of limitations to challenge the rule had already expired. However, Corner Post did not exist until more than six years after the rule issued, and it filed suit less than four years after opening for business. NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, urging SCOTUS to allow the lawsuit to go forward in such circumstances and protect judicial review. NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins joins Mark and Vec to go over the oral argument at the Supreme Court last week in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sidebar: Oscar Hartzell and the Sir Francis Drake Estate Scam

The History of the Americans

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 12, 2024 43:56

Welcome to the first "true crime" episode of the History of the Americans Podcast, the story of Oscar Hartzell and the Sir Francis Drake estate scam, perhaps the most audacious con of the 1920s, the great golden age of the confidence man. Hartzell swindled as many as 200,000 Midwesterners, many from my own state of Iowa, out of millions of dollars posing as the rightful heir to the lost estate of Sir Francis Drake. Eventually, it would drive him insane, at least as adjudged by the director of the behavioral clinic of the criminal court of Cook County, Illinois. Enjoy! X (Twitter): @TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook: The History of the Americans Podcast Selected references for this episode Richard Rayner, "The Admiral and the Con Man," The New Yorker, April 15, 2002 (pdf, subscription necessary) Richard Rayner, Drake's Fortune: The Fabulous True Story of the World's Greatest Confidence Artist John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," 1930 (pdf). Hartzell v. United States, Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, August 16, 1934.

united states history world illinois iowa scams new yorker estate appeals admiral circuit court grandchildren con man sidebar cook county midwesterners sir francis drake hartzell eighth circuit economic possibilities

How America lost its mind—and how to get rationality back | John Inazu

Big Think

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 4, 2024 5:55

Washington University professor John Inazu tells us how we can make peace inside a raging culture war. What explains the high levels of political polarization in American society today? To writer and law professor John Inazu, the answer is not necessarily that the media has become more biased — there has always been bias in the news, after all. The more likely answer is that the “volume” of the information we encounter has been turned way up, thanks to technology. For example, while we used to have limited access to the news through the newspaper and nightly broadcasts, we can now get constant updates on social media, email, and news apps. Often, the result is that we seek out information that confirms our beliefs and we have trouble connecting with people whose opinions differ from our own. Inazu suggests we can break out of our ideological bubbles through “confident pluralism,” which he describes as a framework that uses the values of tolerance, patience, and humility to help people better engage with each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ About John Inazu: John Inazu is the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis. He teaches criminal law, law and religion, and various First Amendment seminars. His scholarship focuses on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, and related questions of legal and political theory. He is the author of Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly (Yale University Press, 2012) and Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference (University of Chicago Press, 2016), and co-editor (with Tim Keller) of Uncommon Ground: Living Faithfully in a World of Difference (Thomas Nelson, 2020). Inazu holds a B.S.E. and J.D. from Duke University and a Ph.D. in political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He clerked for Judge Roger L. Wollman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and served for four years as an associate general counsel with the Department of the Air Force at the Pentagon. About Big Think | Smarter Faster™ ► Big Think The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century. ► Big Think+ Make your business smarter, faster: https://bigthink.com/plus/ Get Smarter, Faster With Interviews From The Worlds Biggest Thinkers. Follow This Podcast And Turn On The Notifications Rate Us With 5 Stars Share This Episode.... --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bigthink/message Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

american university world law religion north carolina court air force pentagon bill clinton duke university first amendment appeals chapel hill washington university bill nye tim keller rationality chicago press big think get smarter america lost john inazu eighth circuit inazu confident pluralism surviving refuge the forgotten freedom

Gazette Daily News Briefing, January 10

The Gazette Daily News Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 10, 2024 4:17

This is Stephen Schmidt from the Gazette Digital News Desk, and I'm here with your update for January 10, 2024.According to the National Weather Service it will be mostly cloudy in the Cedar Rapids area, with a high of 27 degrees. The wind will be calmer Wednesday, with a 5 to 10 mph wind that could gust as high as 20 mph. After snowfall totals nearing a foot in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City through yesterday evening, there could be still more snow on Wednesday. There will be a high chance of snow at around 5 to 11 p.m., with a potential of up to two more inches of snow.Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds used her seventh Condition of the State speech Tuesday to call for accelerated income tax cuts and to express grief over last week's deadly school shooting in Perry — and her gratitude for law enforcement and school officials who responded to it.The Republican governor, in her annual address to a joint session of the Iowa House and Senate, also outlined plans to increase teacher pay, reform the state's Area Education Agencies that serve children with disabilities and create a network of nonprofits to connect Iowans in need with assistance.Reynolds began her address by acknowledging the shooting Thursday at Perry High School that killed 11-year-old Ahmir Jolliff, a sixth-grader, and injured seven students and school staff. The 17-year-old shooter, a student there, killed himself.Reynolds and lawmakers took a moment of silence to honor those affected by the Perry school shooting, and also an Algona police officer and Ionia firefighter who died in the line of duty last year.Reynolds' priorities and policy proposals for the year includes accelerating income tax cuts passed in 2022 that started to take effect this year. The law would gradually reduce personal income taxes to a flat 3.9 percent in 2026.Reynolds' proposal would expedite that transition. Most working Iowans would pay a 3.65 percent state income tax on their 2024 wages, and then a 3.5 rate in 2025. The proposal would reduce Iowans' state income taxes, and thus limit future state revenue growth, by $3.8 billion over the first five years.Reynolds also is asking the Iowa Legislature to invest $96 million in new money to increase starting teacher pay by 50 percent, to $50,000, and to set a minimum salary of $62,000 for teachers with at least 12 years of experience.Saying they are not overly restrictive of free speech, two of Iowa's so-called “ag gag” laws — which create penalties for individuals who trespass on agricultural property with intent to create financial harm — are constitutional, a federal appeals court ruled this week.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit delivered similar rulings Monday in two cases, reversing a lower court decision in both. A district-court ruling on a third lawsuit remains pending, the Iowa Attorney General's Office said.The appeals court rulings mean those state laws could soon become enforceable. But an attorney for one of the plaintiffs expressed confidence opponents would prevail upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.The Republican-majority Iowa Legislature has made four different attempts since 2012 to pass such laws, which supporters say are needed to protect farmers from individuals who unfairly portray their farming practices in undercover recordings. Animal welfare advocates say the laws restrict the ability of advocates to shine a light on the mistreatment of animals.

(LISTEN):13th Judicial Circuit Judge candidate Jesus Osete appears on "Wake Up Mid-Missouri"

Best of Columbia On Demand

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2023 14:57

Longtime mid-Missouri Judge Kevin Crane announced last week that he will not seek re-election in 2024. 13th judicial Circuit Judge Crane says it's been a privilege and honor to serve the citizens of Boone and Callaway counties for the past 34 years. Judge Crane will serve his final year in office in 2024. Former Deputy Missouri Attorney General Jesus Osete has announced he will run for the position. Counselor Osete joined us live on 939 the Eagle's "Wake Up Mid-Missouri', telling listeners that this will be an old-fashioned grassroots campaign. He plans to knock on as many doors as possible in both Boone and Callaway counties, and predicts it will take about $100,000 to run for this race. Counselor Osete has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Missouri Supreme Court:

jesus christ court supreme court wake candidate longtime eagle appeals appears callaway circuit judge judicial circuit missouri supreme court eighth circuit mid missouri

Muldrow v. St. Louis

SCOTUS Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2023 96:41

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual" with respect to "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). The Eighth Circuit below followed binding circuit precedent to hold that discriminatory job transfers (and denials of requested transfers) are lawful under Title VII when they do not impose "materially significant disadvantages" on employees. The question presented is: Does Title VII prohibit discrimination as to all "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment," or is its reach limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees? THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: DOES TITLE VII PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN TRANSFER DECISIONS ABSENT A SEPARATE COURT DETERMINATION THAT THE TRANSFER DECISION CAUSED A SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGE?

st louis civil rights act title vii eighth circuit

The Voting Rights Act challenge.

Tangle

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2023 24:32

The Voting Rights Act. Last week, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that only the U.S. government, not private citizens or civil rights groups, can sue under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). If the ruling is appealed to and upheld by the Supreme Court, or adopted by other courts, the decision would have a sweeping impact on voting rights across the country. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling in a 2 to 1 decision. You can read today's podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest video, a previously paywalled piece about how Israel has no good options here and the controversial debate we posted on YouTube here. Today's clickables: Announcement (0:42), Quick hits (1:28), Today's story (3:35), Left's take (6:30), Left's take (10:22), Isaac's take (14:00), Listener question (17:33), Under the Radar (20:40), Numbers (21:33), Have a nice day (22:20) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the poll. What do you think about the Eighth Circuit's decision on the Voting Rights Act? Let us know! Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message

music israel left numbers supreme court diet radar appeals announcement circuit court voting rights act tangle sean brady eighth circuit voting rights act vra

A Deregulatory Sh*t Show Waiting to Happen

Strict Scrutiny

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 27, 2023 63:32

For its final sitting of 2023, the Supreme Court will hear cases on the Armed Career Criminal Act, double jeopardy, and whether the government is, well, constitutional. Leah, Melissa, and Kate preview those cases, and look into a hot mess of a voting rights case in the Eighth Circuit. Plus, US Representative Ro Khanna stops by to chat about SCOTUS ethics reform.Watch the Strict Scrutiny hosts on The Problem With Jon Stewart, previewing the horrors that await in Jarkesy v. SECRead Justice Jackson's powerful dissent from denial in the case of Michael Johnson, an Illinois inmate who was held in essentially complete isolation in a tiny, windowless cell, caked with human waste, for three years. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

guns illinois supreme court threads scotus blue sky criminal justice michael johnson deregulation jarkesy eighth circuit problem with jon stewart armed career criminal act

Voting Rights Act Under Threat (Again)

What A Day

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2023 16:46

A federal appeals court on Monday issued a ruling that jeopardizes the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that private groups or individuals can't sue under a key provision of the VRA. We're joined by Jay Willis, Editor-in-Chief of Balls and Strikes, to discuss what comes next.Over in Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that could toss Republican-drawn legislative maps. The lawsuit was filed by 19 Democratic voters in Wisconsin who argue that the maps are proof of gerrymandering because they ensure the GOP has an unfair advantage in State Assembly and Senate races.And in headlines: Microsoft hired Sam Altman and Greg Brockman to lead an A.I. research team, far-right populist Javier Milei was elected to be Argentina's next president, and autoworkers ratified their contract with Detroit carmakers.Show notes:WAD will be taking a break to celebrate Thanksgiving, and will be back with a new episode on Monday, November 27th.Balls and Strikes – https://ballsandstrikes.org/NASA's “Message In A Bottle” – https://europa.nasa.gov/message-in-a-bottle/sign-on/What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastCrooked Coffee is officially here. Our first blend, What A Morning, is available in medium and dark roasts. Wake up with your own bag at crooked.com/coffeeFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

Tues 11/21 - OpenAI Implosion and Altman Ouster, Racial Discrimination Suits Harder to Bring, X/Twitter Sues Media Matters, DC Firm Offers Huge Bonuses and Column Tuesday on Wile E. Tax Policy

america challenges supreme court private arkansas limits blow appeals striking naacp voting rights act voting laws eighth circuit eighth circuit court

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2023 12:02

On this day in legal history, November 21 we mark a significant milestone in the fight for gender equality. In 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) was founded in Chicago, a pivotal moment that shaped the course of women's rights in the United States. Established by a group of feminists including Betty Friedan, author of "The Feminine Mystique," NOW emerged in response to the frustration with the federal government's failure to enforce the ban on sex discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.NOW's formation represented a crucial step in the second-wave feminist movement, shifting the focus towards a broader range of issues affecting women's lives. The organization quickly became a powerful force, advocating for policies that promote equality in employment, education, and reproductive rights. It played an instrumental role in the passage of landmark legislation, such as the Equal Rights Amendment, which sought constitutional equality for women.Under NOW's guidance, important legal battles were fought and won. The organization was instrumental in challenging and changing discriminatory practices and laws that limited women's opportunities in the workplace and in society. One of its key achievements was helping to establish that sexual harassment in the workplace is a form of illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.NOW also worked tirelessly to ensure reproductive rights for women, playing a significant role in the lead-up to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. This decision legalized abortion nationwide, marking a major victory for women's autonomy and reproductive freedom.Throughout its history, NOW has not only advocated for legal changes but also raised public awareness about gender discrimination and violence against women. Its relentless efforts have helped to shape public policy and create a more equitable society.As we reflect on this day in legal history, the founding of NOW stands as a testament to the power of collective action and the ongoing struggle for gender equality. The organization's impact on the legal landscape has been profound, paving the way for future generations to continue the fight for women's rights and equality under the law.The ongoing crisis at OpenAI, sparked by the board's firing of CEO Sam Altman, has now escalated to include not only internal unrest but also potential legal action from investors. Following Altman's abrupt departure, a significant portion of OpenAI's staff, including its legal team, threatened to leave unless the board is replaced. This potential mass exodus of over 700 employees comes as a response to what is perceived as a breakdown in leadership and governance, further complicating the situation at one of the most prominent companies in the generative AI sector.Investors in OpenAI are reportedly exploring legal options against the company's board, fearing substantial financial losses. Their concern centers on the risk to their investments in OpenAI, a key player in their portfolios. However, the unique structure of OpenAI, which operates as a for-profit entity under the oversight of a nonprofit parent, complicates the investors' position. Unlike typical venture capital scenarios, OpenAI's structure gives significant leverage to employees over investors in influencing board decisions.This unique arrangement was designed to ensure that the nonprofit parent, OpenAI Nonprofit, maintained focus on its mission to benefit humanity rather than purely investor interests. This setup, which began as a nonprofit and later added a for-profit subsidiary to raise capital, was intended to preserve the core mission and governance of OpenAI.The legal implications of this structure are significant. Nonprofit boards typically have obligations to exercise care and avoid self-dealing, but these can be interpreted flexibly, especially in a corporate framework like OpenAI's. This could further insulate the nonprofit's directors from investor litigation. Legal experts suggest that even if investors were to pursue legal action, their case might be weak due to the broad latitude companies have under the law to make business decisions.OpenAI's crisis, therefore, presents a complex scenario. It involves not only internal governance challenges but also the intricate interplay between nonprofit and for-profit entities in a cutting-edge technology sector. The situation reflects the difficulties in balancing investor interests, employee influence, and the overarching mission of an organization operating at the forefront of artificial intelligence research and development.If you're interested in an at least somewhat informed discussion of the OpenAI debacle, I encourage you to listen to Esquiring Minds episode 29 with Jason Ramsland, Jake Schumer and myself. Link is in the shownotes. OpenAI's Threatened Exodus Would Upend Legal Team Operation (2)Exclusive: OpenAI investors considering suing the board after CEO's abrupt firing | ReutersA significant legal decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has created a substantial shift in the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, specifically impacting the ability of Black and minority voting rights groups to file lawsuits under Section 2 of the Act. The court ruled that only the U.S. Department of Justice, not private groups or individuals, has the right to bring racial gerrymandering suits under this provision. This decision dismissed a lawsuit by Black Arkansas voters, who had a strong claim that the state's congressional map was drawn to discriminate against non-white voters.The ruling has far-reaching implications, limiting the capacity of groups like the NAACP to bring racial gerrymandering cases in the seven states within the Eighth Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, view this as a significant setback for democracy and a departure from decades of legal precedent.Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin hailed the decision as a victory for the rule of law, arguing that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should be the responsibility of politically accountable officials rather than outside groups.The ruling also creates a circuit split, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that private parties do have an implied right to bring such actions. This disagreement among circuits over a major election law issue increases the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court addressing the matter. However, the Arkansas voters involved in the case have yet to decide their next steps, which could include seeking a broader review by the Eighth Circuit or petitioning the Supreme Court.This decision could potentially change the landscape of election law litigation, as private parties have historically brought about ten times as many voting rights cases as federal litigators. The ruling's restriction on who can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could significantly alter the protection of voting rights in the United States.Legal ‘Seachange' Blocks Voters' Racial Discrimination Suits (2)US appeals court ruling strikes at core of landmark voting rights law | ReutersSocial media company X, previously known as Twitter, has filed a lawsuit against the media watchdog group Media Matters. This legal action comes in response to a report by Media Matters stating that ads for major brands were displayed next to posts promoting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. Following the publication of this report, several advertisers, including IBM and Comcast, withdrew their ads from the platform.X claims in its lawsuit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Texas, that Media Matters manipulated its platform to create a misleading narrative. According to X, Media Matters used accounts that followed only major brands or users posting extremist content and engaged in persistent scrolling to find ads adjacent to such posts. X argues that this misrepresents the typical user experience on the platform, alleging that the report was intended to harm the company's business.Media Matters President Angelo Carusone has dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous, asserting that the organization stands by its reporting and is prepared to defend its findings in court. Carusone highlighted the contradiction between X's claims of safety protections to prevent ads from appearing next to harmful content and the reality demonstrated by the report.The lawsuit's filing comes amid broader concerns about X's content moderation policies, especially since Elon Musk's acquisition of the company in October 2022. This period has seen a significant drop in advertising revenue and a departure of several advertisers, partly due to worries about Musk's controversial posts and the reduction of content moderation staff.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has also announced an investigation into Media Matters, citing concerns about the group's alleged data manipulation on X. In the midst of these developments, X's CEO Linda Yaccarino has urged people to stand with the company, emphasizing reliance on data over allegations or manipulation.X sues Media Matters after report about ads next to antisemitic content | ReutersWashington, D.C.-based litigation firm Wilkinson Stekloff is set to award substantial annual seniority-based bonuses to its associates, with the highest amount reaching $201,250. This announcement stands out as most larger U.S. law firms have not yet disclosed their bonus plans. Wilkinson Stekloff, categorized as a "boutique" law firm, typically offers higher bonuses compared to bigger firms. In contrast, New York law firm Milbank, the only large U.S. firm to announce annual bonus figures so far, has declared bonuses ranging from $15,000 to $115,000 based on seniority.The bonuses at Wilkinson Stekloff will start at $26,250 for first-year associates and increase with each class year, with payments scheduled for December 15. The firm, which lists 23 associates on its website, has acknowledged these bonuses as a recognition of the significant contributions their associates make.This decision comes after a particularly notable year for Wilkinson Stekloff, marked by a record number of cases going to trial. Meanwhile, Milbank has also revised its base salary scale, now ranging from $225,000 for junior lawyers to $425,000 for eighth-year associates, with bonus amounts consistent with the previous year.The trend in the legal industry shows that the country's largest law firms often quickly adjust their salary scales to stay competitive, generally following the lead of their peers. So far, no other large firm has publicly matched or exceeded Milbank's salary scale, indicating a cautious approach as they wait to see how other firms respond.D.C. litigation firm offers $201K bonuses as bigger law firms show caution | ReutersMy column this week discusses the increasing practice of movie studios using tax write-downs and write-offs, such as Warner Bros. shelving a completed film, as a means to profit at the expense of public funds. This practice involves receiving state and federal tax incentives for film production, only to later write down or off these productions, essentially using public money to generate tax losses rather than producing movies. This undermines the policy rationale for incentivizing film production, which is meant to foster cultural production and stimulate the arts.Tax breaks for movie studios are common in over 40 states, but they are criticized for being inefficient at job creation and stimulating local economies. Studios often receive substantial reimbursements through tax credits, which they can sell at a discount. Georgia is highlighted as a prime example of this, offering up to 30% of qualified expenses back in tax credits. However, the economic benefits for the state are minimal, especially when movies are shelved and not released.The column also touches on federal tax policies, such as Section 181, which allows substantial tax savings for film and television production. This further emphasizes the burden placed on taxpayers for these incentives.The practice of writing down movies has become more common, especially with the rise of streaming services. Instances such as Disney removing content from Disney+ and recording impairment charges illustrate how the value of completed works can be manipulated for tax benefits.I suggest solutions, including expanding the federal credit with a reduction for state incentives, thus pressuring states to attract studios through means other than tax dollars. Increased scrutiny and auditing of production write-downs and write-offs are also recommended, along with a reevaluation of the carrying costs associated with productions, as these can be inflated for tax purposes.Overall, the column criticizes the exploitation of taxpayer funds through the practice of movie and television write-downs, highlighting it as a significant issue in the intersection of public funding and entertainment industry practices.Movie Tax Write-Downs Help Studios Profit at Public's Expense Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Eighth Circuit Court Limits Private Challenges to Voting Laws, Striking Another Blow to Voting Rights Act

AURN News

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2023 1:45

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has dealt a huge blow to what is left of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, further weakening the rights of minority voters. The Eighth Circuit ruling, which affects voters in Arkansas and six other states, determined that only the federal government, not private citizens or civil rights groups like the NAACP, can challenge discriminatory voting practices under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The latest ruling contradicts decades of legal precedent where private parties have played a crucial role in challenging racist laws and gerrymandering. The decision is expected to face appeal, potentially reaching a Supreme Court that has shown a mixed record on voting rights. The question is, how deeply will this impact the future of voting rights and racial equity in America? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

NCLA Amicus Brief Asks Supreme Court to Uphold a Small Business's Right to Judicial Review

board court supreme court small business federal reserve appeals governors judicial uphold jenin federal reserve system amicus brief eighth circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2023 12:30

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Corner Post, Inc.'s lawsuit challenging a Federal Reserve regulation, ruling that the company had not filed suit before the six-year statute of limitations to challenge the rule expired. However, Corner Post did not exist until more than six years after the rule was implemented, and filed suit less than four years after opening for business. The New Civil Liberties Alliance is filing amicus curiae brief in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the company's lawsuit to go forward and protect the right to proper judicial review. John, Jenin and NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins discuss NCLA's amicus brief in this statute of limitations case before the U.S. Supreme Court.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Originalist Perspectives on Ethics and the Supreme Court

FedSoc Events

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 17, 2023 56:04

Article III of the Constitution vests the “judicial Power” in “one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Our founding document recognizes that the Supreme Court stands apart from the rest of the federal judiciary. Yet, Congress has long regulated several aspects of the high court, including its appellate jurisdiction, rules for establishing a quorum, and standards for recusal. Some critics argue that Congress should go further to regulate ethics on the Supreme Court. Some proposals would require the Justices to adopt an ethics code. Other proposals would impose one on the Justices. This panel will explore originalist perspectives on ethics and the Supreme Court, in particular considering these questions: When it comes to establishing or even enforcing ethical standards for Supreme Court justices, is there a role under the Constitution for Congress? Is it true that Congress has the power (or even without that explicit power) regulate the high court's quorum and recusal standards? And, as a matter of prudence, should Congress take these steps? In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch.” While the Executive holds the sword” and the Legislature “commands the purse,” the courts have “merely judgment.” But can the courts faithfully exercise that judgment when threatened by the sword and pinched by the purse?Featuring:Mr. David Lat, Founder, Original JurisdictionHon. Jay Mitchell, Associate Justice, Alabama Supreme CourtMrs. Carrie C. Severino, President, Judicial Crisis NetworkModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals. Eighth Circuit

Thurs 9/21 - Judge Newman Suspended 1 year, UFC Monopsony Suit, Judiciary has 2 weeks Funding, $10k/hour Legal Fees in Tesla Case, America Supports Strikes and Authors Sue OpenAI

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 21, 2023 10:59

On this day in legal history, September 21, 1981, the United States Senate approved the nomination by President Reagan of Sandra Day O'Connor to the United States Supreme Court–making her the first female Supreme Court justice. O'Connor, who often leaned conservative, used her political experience from her time in the Arizona state Senate to shape her judicial views. She was known for filing concurring opinions that aimed to limit the scope of majority rulings. She faced opposition from the time of her nomination from anti-abortion and religious groups. During her tenure, O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and often served as the swing vote in contentious cases. Initially aligning closely with conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, her voting record later became more moderate as the Court's composition shifted. She played a pivotal role in key decisions, including those related to abortion rights, affirmative action, and campaign finance.She was involved in landmark cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the constitutionality of race-based admissions to universities, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the core constitutional precept of Roe v. Wade. O'Connor retired in 2006 but left a lasting impact on American jurisprudence, particularly in her nuanced approach to complex legal issues.O'Connor also had a brief stint in acting, appearing as Queen Isabel in a 1996 Shakespeare Theatre production of Henry V. In a landmark decision, she cast the deciding vote in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, which ended the Florida vote recount and paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency. She later expressed reservations about the court's involvement in the case.In another historic moment, O'Connor became the first woman to preside over an oral argument in the Supreme Court during the case of Kelo v. City of New London on February 22, 2005. Later that year, at the age of 75, she announced her plans to retire from the bench. Following her retirement, she took on the ceremonial role of the 23rd chancellor of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, a position first held by George Washington. Her groundbreaking career remains a significant chapter in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.The Federal Circuit's active judges have suspended 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for one year for failing to undergo medical testing as part of a disability and misconduct investigation. Initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, the probe began after Newman allegedly had a cardiac incident and raised questions about her productivity. The investigation is notable for its public nature, a rarity in judicial disability investigations. Legal scholars suggest that such probes may become more frequent as the average age of federal judges has risen to 69.Newman has contested the investigation, framing it as bullying and arguing that it was motivated by her frequent dissents in favor of stronger patent rights. The council stated that Newman's non-compliance with medical tests hampers their ability to assess her fitness for duty. A special committee had recommended the suspension, citing Newman's consistent refusal to cooperate.Newman's lawyer, Greg Dolin, criticized the investigation's procedures and called the renewable suspension "unlawful" under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman plans to appeal the council's order and has also filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement. She submitted two medical reports affirming her mental fitness, which the council dismissed as inadequate.The case has drawn public attention, contrasting sharply with Newman's recent accolades at a legal conference. Affidavits from court staff depict her as struggling with memory loss and paranoia, adding another layer of complexity to this unprecedented judicial probe.Embattled 96-Year-Old Judge Suspended in Disability Probe (2)A high-stakes antitrust lawsuit has been filed against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) by around 1,200 former fighters, including Nate "Rock" Quarry. The suit alleges that UFC confines athletes to perpetual contracts and pays them far less than they would earn in a competitive market. The case has been fast-tracked for trial next spring and is closely watched as it could set a precedent for athletes in various sports to fight for better pay using antitrust law.The UFC, owned by Endeavor Group Holdings, generated a record revenue of $1.14 billion last year and reaches over 900 million households globally. Fighters are required to sign exclusive deals, often including four fights per year. However, the UFC allegedly withholds the last fight in a contract until the fighter agrees to renew, effectively trapping them in a cycle of successive contracts.The fighters argue that the UFC is a "monopsony," a sole buyer in a market, and accuse it of abusing this power. Monopsony cases are rare but have gained attention under the Biden administration. While there are other combat sports promotions, the plaintiffs argue that UFC controls the majority of fighters in nearly all weight classes and has also bought or shut down its rivals.The class action status of the lawsuit increases the risk for UFC, as it could be compelled to pay up to $4.8 billion in treble damages. The case could also encourage athletes in other industries to file similar suits. UFC has petitioned to appeal the class certification, arguing that the court erroneously certified the class.The case also highlights the financial struggles of fighters, who are independent contractors paid per bout. While top fighters can earn millions, most fighters have to fund their own training and equipment, leaving them with little net income. The case aims not just for compensation but also to bring about a change in the sport, offering fighters better terms and ending the cycle of perpetual contracts.UFC Fighters Test Antitrust Law to Escape ‘Perpetual' ContractsThe U.S. federal judiciary has enough funds to operate for at least two weeks if the government shuts down due to a lapse in funding. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated that court fees and other available funds could be used to continue hearing cases. Some case deadlines may be rescheduled if federal agency attorneys are not working during the shutdown. If the funds do run out, the judiciary would operate on a limited basis, retaining only the staff necessary for mission-critical work.Current government funding is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, putting pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal on a short-term funding bill. Infighting among House Republicans and disagreements between the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have jeopardized the passage of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. House Republicans have proposed allocating $8.7 billion to the federal judiciary for the next fiscal year, while Senate Democrats have proposed $8.56 billion. Both fall short of the judiciary's request for $9.1 billion.Judge Lavenski Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expressed that a potential government shutdown is a "consistent matter of concern" and that plans are being considered to keep the judiciary operational. The judiciary, which employs nearly 30,000 people, almost ran out of money during the last government shutdown in 2018. The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, used for electronic filing of documents, remained operational during the previous shutdown. The U.S. Supreme Court, which opens its new term on October 2, has used non-appropriated funds in the past to continue short-term operations.Judiciary Has Funds for Two Weeks if Government Shuts Down (1)A legal team that successfully sued Tesla's board of directors for allegedly overpaying themselves is now seeking $229 million in legal fees, amounting to $10,690 an hour. The request was made in a filing in Delaware's Court of Chancery on September 8. If approved, this would be one of the largest fee awards ever resulting from a shareholder lawsuit against a board. The case took several years to build and focused on the compensation paid to Tesla's directors from 2017 to 2020.The 12 director defendants, including James Murdoch and Larry Ellison, had agreed to return $735 million in compensation and forego another potential $184 million. They also agreed to overhaul the board's compensation determination process. The settlement money will be paid to Tesla and indirectly benefit shareholders, making this a derivative lawsuit.The law firms involved in the case estimate the total settlement value at $919 million and are seeking 25% of that sum as their fee. They are also requesting about $1 million in expenses. Partners and staff from the law firms involved have billed thousands of hours on the case.Courts typically review fee requests by balancing the need to reward risk and effort against the risk of a disproportionate windfall that could undermine public confidence in the legal system. David Paige, founder of Legal Fee Advisors, described the fee request as "extraordinary" compared to typical hourly rates for corporate attorneys, which can go up to $2,000.Tesla's directors have not yet objected to the fee request but are expected to do so, according to court filings. A hearing to approve the settlement and the legal fees is scheduled for October 13, and Tesla shareholders have until Friday to file any objections.In 2012, Delaware courts approved an hourly rate that worked out to $35,000 in a Southern Copper shareholder lawsuit, setting a precedent that the outcome achieved should be the focus, not the hourly rate.Lawyers who sued Tesla board for excess pay want $10,000 an hour | ReutersA recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that a majority of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, support the ongoing strikes in the auto industry and Hollywood. The poll found that 58% of Americans back the United Auto Workers union's strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis for better pay and benefits. In the entertainment industry, 60% support the strikes by screenwriters and actors for better pay and protections. Among Democrats, the support is especially strong, with 72% backing the auto workers strike and 79% supporting the Hollywood strike. Interestingly, a significant number of Republicans also expressed support for the strikes, despite the party's traditional pro-business stance. The poll reflects a broader trend of increased union activism in the U.S., with 2023 on track to become the busiest year for strikes since 2019.Americans broadly support auto, Hollywood strikes -Reuters/Ipsos pollA U.S. authors' trade group, including renowned writers like John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, has filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of unlawfully training its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, on copyrighted works from these authors. The Authors Guild, which filed the suit, is also concerned that the training data may have been sourced from illegal online book repositories. OpenAI has defended its actions by claiming that the use of internet-scraped training data falls under "fair use" according to U.S. copyright law. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal landscape where AI companies are facing challenges over the data used to train their systems.John Grisham, other top US authors sue OpenAI over copyrights | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

america american ai hollywood house americans joe biden arizona current judge legal court tesla supreme court chatgpt republicans lawyers partners democrats ufc senate roe v wade bush funding democratic fighters strikes delaware newman openai suit george w bush courts george washington 1 year suspended appeals planned parenthood general motors two weeks williamsburg george r house republicans united states supreme court judiciary united states senate stellantis senate democrats john grisham initiated infighting bollinger united auto workers new london larry ellison embattled legal fees federal circuit authors guild ultimate fighting championship ufc kelo chancery disability act reuters ipsos eighth circuit james murdoch grutter monopsony administrative office judicial conduct david paige judge pauline newman

USCA, Eighth Circuit Lindell v. United States, Case No. 22-3510