Podcasts about eighth circuit

This Day in Legal History: Harry Blackmun Confirmed to SCOTUSOn May 12, 1970, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Harry A. Blackmun to the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy left by Justice Abe Fortas. Nominated by President Richard Nixon, Blackmun had previously served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was considered a moderate, scholarly jurist. His confirmation marked the culmination of a tumultuous series of failed nominations for the seat, including two rejections by the Senate, making Blackmun's 94–0 approval a moment of bipartisan relief.Blackmun would go on to serve nearly a quarter-century on the Court, authoring over 700 opinions. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized a constitutional right to abortion. The decision would shape political and legal debates for decades and define Blackmun's legacy, despite his broader jurisprudential contributions. Over time, he evolved from a judicial centrist to one of the Court's more liberal voices, especially on issues of individual rights and the death penalty.After retiring in 1994, Blackmun remained active in legal education and public service until his death in 1999. The Library of Congress released his extensive papers in 2004, providing scholars with a revealing look into the internal workings of the Court during his tenure. His former clerks, some of whom became influential legal figures themselves, publicly remembered him for his deep humanity and commitment to justice. Blackmun's confirmation anniversary serves as a reminder of how judicial legacies can transcend the expectations of those who appoint them.U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary 14-day halt on the Trump administration's federal government restructuring plan, citing a lack of congressional authorization for mass layoffs and agency overhauls. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by unions, nonprofits, and local governments opposing the large-scale “reductions in force” initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. Judge Illston emphasized that the president cannot broadly restructure federal agencies without clear approval from Congress. The plaintiffs submitted extensive evidence showing critical services being disrupted, including nearly complete staff terminations at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Pittsburgh. Similar losses were reported at Head Start, the Farm Service Agency, and the Social Security Administration. Illston found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of several claims, including violations of administrative law and overreach by DGE, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. The administration's efforts, ordered in February by Trump, aim to automate services, eliminate redundant roles, and reduce federal personnel. Critics argue the changes are destabilizing and harmful to community services. Illston's ruling aims to preserve the status quo while legal challenges proceed, with a hearing on a potential preliminary injunction scheduled for May 22.Judge orders temporary halt to Trump administration's government overhaul | ReutersRumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University, returned to Massachusetts after being held for over six weeks in U.S. immigration custody in Louisiana. Her arrest stemmed from a revoked student visa, which the government linked to an opinion piece she co-wrote criticizing Tufts University's response to the war in Gaza and urging divestment from companies tied to Israel. Ozturk was apprehended by masked officers in Somerville, Massachusetts, and was quickly transferred from Vermont to a detention facility in Louisiana. Her legal team, including the ACLU, argued her detention was a retaliatory act against constitutionally protected speech, aimed at silencing pro-Palestinian voices on campus.U.S. District Judge William Sessions granted her release after determining she had strong grounds for claiming her constitutional rights were violated. Upon arrival at Logan International Airport, Ozturk expressed relief and gratitude, thanking supporters and calling attention to other detained women. Representative Ayanna Pressley condemned the detention as a politically motivated act of intimidation, citing inhumane conditions and medical neglect during Ozturk's confinement. The case has drawn national attention amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to deport campus activists engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.Tufts student returns to Massachusetts after release from immigration custody | ReutersOver the weekend Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing at the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in New Jersey during an unannounced visit by three Democratic members of Congress. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained Baraka after a scuffle at the facility's gate while a bus of detainees was arriving. Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver, and Robert Menendez Jr. were also present and said to have been jostled during the confrontation. According to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, the group's uncoordinated attempt to enter the site was unsafe and politically motivated.Baraka, who is campaigning for governor, stated after his release that he was there to support the lawmakers and did not cross into restricted areas. His supporters and congressional aides claim he remained outside the facility's fence and that ICE exaggerated the incident. DHS accused the group of endangering detainees and law enforcement, while the lawmakers insisted they were exercising lawful oversight powers. The detention center, operated by the GEO Group, has faced criticism from immigrant rights advocates for allegedly lacking local permits and operating against community wishes. The controversy has become entangled in Baraka's gubernatorial campaign, spotlighting tensions over immigration policy and the role of private detention facilities.New Jersey mayor charged with trespassing at US immigration detention center | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced plans to slash U.S. prescription drug prices to match the lowest prices found internationally, prompting a global selloff in pharmaceutical stocks. In a post touting cuts of “59%, PLUS!,” Trump previewed an executive order mandating a “most-favored nation” pricing rule. This would require that Americans pay no more than citizens in the cheapest country for the same medication—a move that starkly contradicts the administration's prior market-driven rhetoric, now seemingly embracing a form of price fixing. Investors, analysts, and drugmakers scrambled to assess the implications, especially since Medicare and Medicaid represent a major share—around 40%—of U.S. drug spending.The proposed pricing shift offers manufacturers two theoretical paths to comply: lower U.S. drug prices to align with cheaper countries like France or Japan, or raise prices overseas to maintain U.S. revenue levels. It remains unclear which route companies will choose, but economic incentives suggest they'll resist U.S. price drops by inflating foreign costs instead. Trump framed the move as restoring fairness to American consumers, whom he described as having long subsidized global drug development. The executive order follows a prior, unsuccessful attempt during his first term to peg Medicare prices to international benchmarks—a plan struck down in court for procedural flaws.The Inflation Reduction Act already initiated drug price negotiations under President Biden, but Trump's new approach could broaden the scope or accelerate the effort. However, legal and legislative obstacles remain, especially since the administration cannot set prices for the commercial market without congressional support. Analysts are watching closely for whether the policy targets just Medicare, specific drug types, or a wider range. Meanwhile, critics note the contradiction in Trump's newfound support for a centralized pricing strategy after years of decrying government interference in markets.Trump Vows US Drug Price Cuts of Up to 80% in Industry Blow (2) 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

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the Supreme Court's decision to reject Minnesota's appeal of an Eighth Circuit decision striking down its age limit for carry permits, effectively clearing the way for young adults to carry guns in the state. We also talk about a new bill signed into law in Iowa this week that accomplishes the same thing for that state's residents. We then cover a new Fox poll showing more people disapprove of President Trump's handling of gun policy than approve in his first 100 days back in office. Finally, we wrap up with an update on my upcoming trip down to Atlanta to cover the NRA's annual meeting.

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, Maryland assault weapon ban, drones, privacy rights, Supreme Court, Armed American Radio Takeaways The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Jacobson v. Wirth case is seen as a win for Second Amendment rights. The Eighth Circuit's ruling allows 18 to 20-year-olds to carry handguns for self-defense in Minnesota. The ongoing Maryland assault weapon ban case has yet to be decided by the Supreme Court after multiple conferences. The conversation highlights the importance of local victories in the fight for gun rights. The ambiguity of 'reasonable force' in Florida's drone legislation raises questions about privacy rights. The discussion reflects on the evolving nature of privacy in the age of surveillance technology. Mark Walters emphasizes the need for clarity in laws regarding personal privacy and drone usage. The conversation touches on the implications of the Patriot Act on personal privacy. The hosts speculate on the political motivations behind the Supreme Court's decision-making process. The episode concludes with a call to action for listeners to stay informed and engaged in these issues. Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including recent legal victories, the ongoing Maryland assault weapon ban case, and the implications of drone surveillance on personal privacy. The conversation highlights the importance of local victories in the fight for gun rights and the evolving nature of privacy in the age of technology. The hosts also speculate on the political motivations behind the Supreme Court's decision-making process and emphasize the need for clarity in laws regarding personal privacy and drone usage. titles Easter Reflections and Legal Wins Second Amendment Victories: A Closer Look Maryland Assault Weapon Ban: What's Next? Drones, Privacy, and the Right to Defend

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will […]

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

Featuring:Prof. Sam Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Public Law, New York University School of LawProf. Chimène Keitner, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California Davis School of LawModerator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

VALUE FOR VALUE Thank you to the Bowl After Bowl Episode Producers: harvhat, ChadF, piez, phifer, Ch!llN0w1, bitpunk.fm, cbrooklyn, wartime, HeyCitizen, permanerd, ajoint, makeheroism, RevCyberTrucker, ericpp, billybon3s, DJW, hzrd149, Boolysteed, SirSeatSitter ChadF says follow econoalchemist and Rod of Pod256  Send newspapers to: PO BOX 410514 Kansas City, MO 64141 Intro/Outro: Karl Casey (White Bat Audio) - Lost In Space FIRST TIME I EVER... Bowlers called in to discuss the First Time They Ever got waxed. Next week, tell us about the First Time YOU Ever made a Valentine box. TOP THREE 33 Tesla sees January sales drop 33% as China's NEV market slows (Yahoo Finance) Aflac blames technical difficulties for a 33% drop in U.S. dental sales (BenefitsPro) 33 Gujarati immigrants, deported from US, land in Ahmedabad (Times of India) Bangladesh detains 33 Rohinga (Myanmar) for illegal border crossing (Anadolu Ajansi) Super Bowl weekend fatalities have risen 33% in US since 2019 (KXAN Austin) Ukrainian forces repel 33 Russian attacks in Pokrovsk sector (Espreso.tv)  Elizabeth line crime soars 33% as Gaza war sparks rise in 'hate' on London Tube, bus network (The Standard) BEHIND THE CURTAIN Russia releases Marc Fogel (The Associated Press) First discussed on Bowl After Bowl Episode 180 US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rules federal prohibition on gun possession by ALL people who use marijuana is unconstitutional (US Courts) Colorado Springs will NOT vote on marijuana sales this April (KKTV) South Dakota state authorities warn of laced marijuana (KELOLAND News / YouTube) Tennessee judge extends temporary injunction pausing rules to ban hemp products until at least June (Tennessee Lookout) Lockhart, Texas City Council votes not to implement voter-approved decriminalization law (KVUE / YouTube) ON CHAIN, OFF CHAIN, COCAINE, SHITSTAIN NODE PARTY FRIDAY FEBRUARY 21 @ 7PM CENTRAL RSVP: spencer@bowlafterbowl.com Check out our building a Start9 tutorial video UK demands Apple create backdoor (The Washington Post)  19 states pushing for state Bitcoin reserve (Coindesk) Trump Media registers trademarks for Truth.Fi investment vehicles (GlobeNewswire) bitcoinlaws.io Strategy resumes Bitcoin purchases (Yahoo Finance)  Fountain errors on big boosts?  KC Bitcoiners meetups: Thursday February 20th at 6:30 pm at The Bar with Prasad Saraph, PB Jam Saturday February 22 at RJ's Bob-Be-Que Shack with SeedSigner METAL MOMENT Tonight, the RevCyberTrucker brings us Pantera's Walk. Follow the Rev's adventures at RevCyberTrucker@NoAuthority.com FUCK IT, DUDE. LET'S GO BOWLING! Spencer man sentenced after authorities found 33 pounds of methamphetamine for distribution (SiouxlandProud) National Zoo mourns death of 33-year-old gray seal Gunther (WTOP) 33 fire departments fight large Darke County chicken farm fire (Dayton Daily News) US woman, 33, ghosted by teen boyfriend in Pakistan camps outside his house (NDTV World) Kimball man who ate ex-wife's cat, found guilty of animal cruelty (News Channel Nebraska)*SirOMA Judge in Netherlands prohibits province from paintballing on wolf (Omroep) The heist of 100,000 eggs in Pennsylvania becomes a whodunit police have yet to crack (AP) FIrecracker explodes in woman's mouth in China after mistaking it for candy (Says) Garbage truck explosion 'close call' for Ohio sanitaton workers (WSYX / YouTube) Michigan priest accused of grabbing teen's hair, attempting to floss teeth with it (FOX / YouTube) Long lost silent film about Lincoln found after 100+ years (FOX / YouTube) TUNE IN FOR BATTLE OF THE FICTIONAL DOUCHEBAGS SUNDAY 2/12/25

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.We're less than a month into the second Trump administration, and mayors of major cities are already feeling the heat. The barrage of executive orders out of the White House can be hard to keep up with—and mayors of blue cities must decide which ones to fight, which ones to go along with, and which ones to try to change.So it's an interesting—and challenging—time to be Mayor Quinton Lucas, the 55th mayor of Kansas City, Missouri. He's having to navigate what all of Trump's actions mean for the city he governs, one of the 40 largest in the country. And as a Democratic mayor in a Republican-dominated state, he has to deal with his state's government as well—sometimes confrontationally, and sometimes cooperatively.As he goes about his work, “Mayor Q” draws upon his legal training and experience—as an Eighth Circuit clerk, practicing litigator, and law professor at the University of Kansas. And he's ultimately optimistic about the future—including February 9, when his city's powerhouse football team will go up against the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LIX. Go Chiefs!Show Notes:* Meet Mayor Lucas, City of Kansas City* Post-Emption and the Mayoral Toolbox: Levers and Limits of City Resistance to State Preemption, by Quinton D. Lucas and Gavriel Schreiber for The University of Chicago Law ReviewPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

Episode 24: Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 15, 2025. Argued by Braden H. Boucek of the Southeastern Legal Foundation (on behalf of Brooke Henderson, et al.) and Tina Fowler (on behalf of the Board of Education of the Springfield R-12 School District, et al.). Background of the case, from Circuit Judge Colloton's Eighth Circuit panel opinion: In 2020, the Springfield R-12 School District required its employees to attend “equity training.” Two employees who attended the training sued the school district and several school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that during the training, the defendants compelled them to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on the ground that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and thus lacked standing to sue. The court also found that the lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the school district. The plaintiffs appeal. Because we agree that the plaintiffs did not establish an injury in fact, we affirm the dismissal. We conclude, however, that the fee award was unwarranted and reverse that portion of the judgment. Statement of Issues Presented for Review, excerpted from the Brief of Appellants: Whether SPS [Springfield Public Schools] unconstitutionally compelled Plaintiffs to speak on matters of public concern and adopt its views in violation of the First Amendment. Whether SPS unconstitutionally discriminated against Plaintiffs' views when it adopted a position on current affairs and told Plaintiffs that their views were wrong. Whether SPS created an unconstitutional condition of employment when it compelled speech on matters of public concern and engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Whether the district court erred in finding Plaintiffs' claims frivolous. Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees in the amount of $312,869.50 and costs in the amount of $3,267.10 to Defendants. Whether reassignment to a different judge is appropriate on any remand. Resources: The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joins Dr. Roberts for a powerful discussion on the landmark case U.S. v. Skrmetti and the critical battles against federal overreach. General Skrmetti shares insights into his leadership in defending state sovereignty, tackling ESG mandates, and shaping the future of cyber law. From safeguarding education and healthcare policy to advancing common-sense public policy, this episode dives into the legal fights that will define America's future. About General Skrmetti: Jonathan Skrmetti was sworn in to an eight-year term as Tennessee's Attorney General and Reporter on September 1, 2022. Prior to his current role, General Skrmetti served as Chief Counsel to Governor Bill Lee and as Chief Deputy Attorney General to his predecessor, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery. Before working for the State of Tennessee, General Skrmetti was a partner at Butler Snow LLP in Memphis. His legal career began with nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor. He worked at the Civil Rights Division at Main Justice and then at the Memphis U.S. Attorney's Office and prosecuted sex traffickers, corrupt government officials, and violent white supremacists. In addition, General Skrmetti taught cyberlaw as an adjunct professor at the University of Memphis. General Skrmetti earned honors degrees from George Washington University, the University of Oxford, and Harvard Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Following law school, Jonathan clerked for Judge Steven Colloton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He lives in Franklin, Tennessee, with his wife and four children.

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.Featuring:Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under LawDean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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'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.

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/

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Fourth Amendment: Did the FBI improperly seize My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell's cellphone during its investigation into efforts to subvert the 2020 election? - Argued: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:39:30 EDT

Liz and Andrew give a brief update on how it's going for Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit. (Spoiler alert: not good! Like, contempt of court not good.) Then, the duo break down the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ryan Lizza in the LOLsuit filed by former Representative and guy-who-sued-an-Internet-cow-and-lost, Devin Nunes. It's informative AND hilarious! In the Patreon bonus, we tell you how the omniversal fear of Antonin Scalia created modern supplemental jurisdiction law! Notes Nunes v. Lizza Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iand.55763/gov.uscourts.iand.55763.149.0.pdf  Eighth Circuit holding https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/09/202710P.pdf Devin Nunes's Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -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

Republicans gain small majority in the House of Representatives -- thanks to New York's Lee Zeldin. Gridlock in Congress is a good thing. Eighth Circuit has enjoined Biden's student loan bailout, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of billions. Joe Biden meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping, doesn't ask any questions about covid. Nolan Peterson, former USAF special operations pilot and correspondent for Coffee or Die Magazine, returns to give C&B his on-the-ground update on the war in Ukraine. Amazon billionaire, Jeff Bezos, warns Americans to tighten their purse strings, economy does not look good. Listen to the entire NFL crowd in Munich Germany singing along to the John Denver classic "Take Me Home, Country Roads."Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A federal judge in Texas vacates President Biden's plan to forgive student debt, calling it an "unconstitutional exercise." But will this ruling hold up on appeal, or should the President's critics keep an eye on a similar case in the Eighth Circuit? Plus, the latest inflation report shows prices up 7.7% year over year, which is down slightly but still way too high for comfort. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices