Podcasts about eighth circuit court

This Day in Legal History: Watergate Trial BeginsOn October 4, 1974, the trial of key Watergate conspirators began, marking a significant moment in American legal and political history. The defendants included top Nixon administration officials H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson. These men were accused of participating in the cover-up of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, a scandal that would ultimately lead to President Nixon's resignation.The trial was presided over by Judge John Sirica, who had played a pivotal role in uncovering the truth behind Watergate. At the outset, the court reviewed transcripts of the now-infamous Watergate tapes, which had been secretly recorded by President Nixon in the Oval Office. These recordings captured critical conversations revealing the extent of the administration's involvement in the cover-up.The tapes provided key evidence, especially a June 23, 1972, conversation known as the "smoking gun" tape, in which Nixon and Haldeman discussed obstructing the FBI's investigation. The trial was part of the broader legal reckoning following Nixon's resignation two months earlier in August 1974.Haldeman and Ehrlichman, two of Nixon's closest aides, were found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. John Mitchell, Nixon's former Attorney General, was also convicted on conspiracy charges. This trial helped close one chapter of the Watergate scandal, demonstrating the judicial system's role in holding even the highest-ranking officials accountable for abuses of power.A federal court has blocked President Biden's latest student debt relief plan, ruling it likely unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted a preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of seven Republican-led states. Judge Matthew T. Schelp, who issued the ruling, emphasized the public interest in ensuring the government follows the law. The plan, which would have canceled debt for 27 million borrowers, is now paused.The plaintiffs argue the plan is an executive overreach. While Georgia was dismissed from the lawsuit for lacking standing, Missouri's Higher Education Loan Authority was found to have suffered an injury, giving Missouri standing to continue the case. This ruling temporarily halts the debt relief program as the court considers whether to permanently strike it down. The injunction is a blow to Biden's efforts to reduce student debt, following the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier decision in 2023 that struck down a broader relief plan. Another related plan, known as “SAVE,” which aims to provide zero-dollar payments and expedite forgiveness for some borrowers, is also under review by the Eighth Circuit Court. This decision prevents the debt relief plan from taking effect while the court evaluates the case, reflecting the court's consideration of the public interest and potential harm.Biden's Latest Student Debt Relief Plan Blocked by Federal CourtThe U.S. government has supported Nvidia investors in a Supreme Court case where they allege the company misled the market about its reliance on cryptocurrency mining sales. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a brief urging the Court to allow the case to proceed, siding with the investors. The Ninth Circuit Court previously revived the class action, ruling that Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang made materially false or misleading statements about the company's revenue dependence on crypto mining, particularly before a 2018 market downturn.Nvidia disputes the case, claiming the investors' allegations were based on unreliable expert data. However, the DOJ and SEC argued that the claims were backed by multiple sources, including accounts from former employees, a Royal Bank of Canada report, Nvidia's own public statements, and SEC filings. These sources collectively suggest Nvidia earned $1.35 billion more from crypto sales during the boom than it disclosed.The government emphasized that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which governs investor lawsuits, was not misapplied by the Ninth Circuit. It rejected Nvidia's argument that the case was based solely on unsubstantiated expert opinions, pointing out that the allegations were supported by sufficient evidence to infer Nvidia's intent to mislead investors.Nvidia Investors Backed by US in Supreme Court Crypto Sales CaseThe European Union's top court has ruled that Meta must limit the use of personal data collected from Facebook users for targeted advertising. This decision supports privacy advocate Max Schrems, who argued that Meta's personalized advertising violated privacy regulations by processing personal data without proper limitations. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) emphasized that under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the principle of data minimization restricts how much personal data companies can use for targeted ads.Meta responded by stating it has invested heavily in privacy features and does not use sensitive data for personalized ads. Schrems' lawyer welcomed the decision, saying it would significantly reduce the amount of data Meta and other companies can use for advertising, even when users consent. This ruling marks another victory for Schrems, who has repeatedly taken Meta to court over alleged GDPR violations.Meta must limit data use for targeted advertising, top EU court rules | ReutersCupertino, California, has reached a settlement with the state's Department of Tax and Fee Administration, allowing the city to retain millions in sales tax revenue tied to Apple's online sales through August 2024. The settlement resolves a dispute that began in 2021 when the department audited Cupertino's 26-year tax-sharing agreement with Apple. Under this agreement, Apple treated all in-state online sales as originating from Cupertino, directing a portion of the state sales tax to the city, which in turn shared 35% of the revenue with Apple.The tax department has scrutinized similar deals with other retailers like Best Buy and Williams-Sonoma, arguing that businesses need to show active participation in the transactions where the sales are reported. Last year, Cupertino set aside $56.5 million to potentially repay the state as the dispute escalated to $60.3 million by February 2024.The settlement avoids litigation, but the city did not disclose specific financial details or directly reference Apple in the announcement. It clarified that the agreement does not impact its tax-sharing arrangement with any taxpayer.Cupertino Settles With State in Apple Sales Tax-Sharing FightThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week's closing theme is the Adagio lamentoso from Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, also known as the "Pathétique" Symphony. Tchaikovsky composed this masterpiece in 1893, just a few months before his sudden and mysterious death. The "Pathétique" Symphony is widely regarded as his most personal and emotionally charged work, filled with profound sorrow and introspection.The fourth movement, "Adagio lamentoso," is the symphony's haunting conclusion. Unlike most symphonies, which end on a triumphant or uplifting note, Tchaikovsky chose to close his final symphony with this slow, lamenting movement. It reflects deep melancholy and resignation, expressing a sense of despair that resonates with listeners. The music ebbs and flows between quiet, intimate passages and moments of overwhelming intensity, capturing the fragility and tragedy of life.Tchaikovsky was known for his ability to express raw emotion through music, and the "Adagio lamentoso" exemplifies this talent. The theme's descending lines seem to mirror a downward spiral into sorrow, giving it an almost funereal quality. Some have speculated that the symphony reflects Tchaikovsky's own inner turmoil and struggles, adding a layer of poignancy to the already emotional score.As you listen to the "Finale" this week, take note of its deep, somber beauty and how Tchaikovsky blends anguish with moments of quiet reflection. It's a fitting close to a symphony that grapples with life's most profound emotions.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, the Pathetique Symphony. Enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textPlease Support Our Show❤️https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=88DP4YMVETHFQAdvertise with us:https://theliteracyview.com/contact/Join our Facebook Group✅https://www.facebook.com/share/g/msdoTSwSiQvbtUW9/?mibextid=qtnXGeEmail us: FaithandJudy@gmail.comFaith's Book Links-https://a.co/d/5bv8AdEhttps://a.co/d/50d2qWZThe One About…Badass Moms and Their Teens: Adolescent Literacy Kickoff!Real MomsReal TeensReal IssuesStraight Talk No BS!Our special guests turned lemons into lemonade! Article:Not-So-Great Expectations:Students are Reading Fewer Books in English ClassApnews.comhttps://apnews.com/article/books-reading-high-school-english-class-c8d9f39773268a6e8c79cb0b3c78d3c1 Stacey Klein and MaxStacey Klein is a fierce parent advocate who took on Minnesota's most affluent school district to fight for her son's right to learn to read. Her son completed 3rd-grade with a Kindergarten reading level. Without her advocacy and intervention, he was on a trajectory to finish 12th-grade reading at a 4th-grade level. Stacey's family navigated years of delays, denials, a due process hearing, and federal lawsuits in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, ultimately costing them $300,000 in educational and legal fees. Despite the district's appeals, her son received all of his court-ordered services, worked hard, is now reading at grade level, and is on track to graduate with his peers. Today, Stacey relentlessly advocates for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia, committed to ensuring no family has tofight the same battle her family did to guarantee their child learns to read in school. Sheri Vail and KeeraSheri's Facebook page, Sheri Vail CoachingEmail: sherivailcoaching@gmail.comPhone # 631-503-1544 Hornet and Word Wasp Manualshttps://www.wordwasp.com/ Facebook GroupWord Wasp USA Support Dinorah DellaCamera and ChrisDr.Dinorah DellaCamera is veterinarian who is passionate about reading and life long learning. On Facebook, she is the infamous “Carrie Dee” and is the admin for a handful of dyslexia groups. Dinorah is a member of the NYS Dyslexia Task Support the showThe Literacy View is an engaging and inclusive platform encouraging respectful discussion and debate about current issues in education.

The pistol brace ban just racked up another legal loss. A panel on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ban. That puts it in legal peril in a whole new federal circuit. And this case is the one led by the company that pioneered the accessory, SB Tactical. That's why we have SB Tactical Founder Alex Bosco on the show to give his reaction to the ruling. He explains why he thinks the new decision is vital for his company and industry even though another court already vacated the brace ban rule. Then, he lays out where SB Tactical and the industry plan to head from here, both in court and in the marketplace. We also have a Member Segment where we hear from one of the people who make The Reload possible. He describes his journey from military kid to military man to gun collector and beyond. It's always great getting to know our members! Special Guest: Alex Bosco.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover new polling data showing that the Supreme Court's recognition of public gun carry rights is more popular than ever. We also analyze the likelihood of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear an assault weapon case later this year, as well as a new Fox News poll showing voters trust Donald Trump over Kamala Harris on gun policy. We wrap up by discussing a new Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against President Biden's pistol brace ban, New York officials opting to create gun carry permits for non-residents, and the latest instance of parents of school shooters being taken to court.

The Biden Administration asks the Supreme Court to reinstate its student-loan forgiveness program after losing at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Will Donald Trump make this expensive taxpayer write-off a campaign issue? Plus, the University of North Carolina launches a new school dedicated to classical liberal political thought. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

At the Federal Communications Commission’s November 2023 meeting, the agency approved rules aimed at preventing and eliminating digital discrimination. These rules are a culmination of a controversial multi-year proceeding, kicked off by Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.In this webinar, a panel of experts will discuss policies and issues underlying the FCC’s rules, challenges that companies may face in compliance with the rules, as well as the issues before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the FCC’s digital discrimination order is being challenged. Panelists will also discuss some of the potential future obligations that remain open in the FCC’s proceeding.Featuring:Diana Eisner, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy, USTelecomDenny Law, General Manager / CEO, Golden West TelecommunicationsDr. Alisa Valentin, Broadband Policy Director, Public KnowledgeModerator: Danielle Thumann, Senior Attorney, Government Relations, Crown Castle---To register, click the link above.

On March 21, 2024, the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal District of Minnesota's dismissal of a discrimination and retaliation case where the Upper Midwest Law Center's client, Aaron Norgren, had objected to the Minnesota Department of Human Services' mandatory critical-race-theory and gender-nonbinary “trainings” and was later refused the chance to interview for a promotion.

To what degree can investors control climate outcomes? Listen to Jason Mitchell discuss with Professor Madison Condon, Boston University School of Law, about what universal ownership theory represents in the context of climate change and how this has recently changed. In addition, this far-reaching conversation highlights how private sector ownership of climate models has created a ‘climate intelligence arms race' that has serious oversight implications. Madison Condon is an Associate Professor at Boston University School of Law where she teaches Environmental Law and Corporations. Her research focuses on climate change and its relationship to corporate governance, market risk, and financial regulators. She was first a Legal Fellow, and then an Attorney, at the Institute for Policy Integrity from 2017-2020. Before that, she clerked for Judge Jane Kelly of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and was a fellow with the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been integral to protecting people of color at the polls. But in recent decades, the strength of the VRA has been diminished by decisions like Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and the subsequent influx of voter restrictions imposed by states. Despite this, there are ways we can fight back in the courts. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in certain language minority groups. It is the right of private individuals to challenge discriminatory voting practices and of organizations like the ACLU to support those who raise these challenges. But now, the right to bring these crucial cases before the courts is being threatened. On January 30, we received a decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that it will not rehear Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, a case which challenges the Arkansas House district map for unlawfully stifling the voting strength of Black Arkansas residents. This decision upholds a 2022 lower court ruling in the case that radically concluded that voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2. This is unprecedented—more than 400 Section 2 cases have been litigated in federal court in the past four decades to protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities, and private plaintiffs have brought the vast majority of them. In today's episode, you'll hear from Barry Jefferson, Dorothy Nairne, and Khadidah Stone, three plaintiffs from Section 2 cases. They'll discuss their experiences challenging racially gerrymandered district maps in their respective states, what compelled them to take action, and how we can all be voting rights advocates. To learn more about redistricting, the cases we mentioned in this episode, and the ACLU's efforts to protect voting rights, click here: https://www.aclu.org/redistricting/redistricting-101#slide2

In today's episode, Brook gives us an update to our last episode, which introduced a decision coming out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the EPA improperly "revoked all tolerances" for the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos. Today, Brook explains EPA's December 2023 response to the court's decision, and how that will affect the 2024 agricultural growing season.  Hosted by Chloe Marie, Research Specialist—With Brook Duer, Staff Attorney—Produced by Chloe Marie, Written by Brook Duer Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law https://aglaw.psu.edu/ Follow us on Twitter: @AgShaleLaw Like us on Facebook: Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In today's episode, Brook and Chloe talk about a decision coming out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the EPA improperly "revoked all tolerances" for the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos. Brook explains the background of the use of EPA's chlorpyrifos rule and how this decision changes the legality of the product. Hosted by Chloe Marie, Research Specialist—With Brook Duer, Staff Attorney—Produced by Chloe Marie, Written by Brook Duer Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law https://aglaw.psu.edu/ Follow us on Twitter: @AgShaleLaw Like us on Facebook: Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

A federal appeals court ruling is prompting a review of some previous decisions in favor of tribes seeking redistricting or ballot access changes. The recent decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals limits who can sue under the landmark Voting Rights Act. We'll check on selected access and redistricting cases, including a redistricting case involving North Dakota tribes and a ballot drop-box initiative in Arizona, that indicate how Native voting access could change. GUESTS Jacqueline De Leon (Isleta Pueblo), senior attorney for the Native American Rights Fund  OJ Semans Sr (Rosebud Sioux), co-executive director of Four Directions Native Vote Michelle Sparck (Qissunamiut Tribe of Chevak, Alaska), director of strategic initiatives at Get Out the Native Vote

A federal appeals court ruling is prompting a review of some previous decisions in favor of tribes seeking redistricting or ballot access changes. The recent decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals limits who can sue under the landmark Voting Rights Act. We'll check on selected access and redistricting cases, including a redistricting case involving North Dakota tribes and a ballot drop-box initiative in Arizona, that indicate how Native voting access could change.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Dec. 18, 2023Encouraging New Decisions for North Dakota and Louisiana Push Back on the U.S. Eighth Circuit's “No Right of Private Action” Voting Rights Act RulingLast week we reported on the aftershocks of an Arkansas racial gerrymandering case, where the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided voters and groups had “No private right of action” under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   Two rulings issued Friday, December 15th pushed back on that radical decision.Our podcasting host recently made changes which stops us from including our entire script as part of the podcast content.  To view the whole script, please go to our website and find today's report.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:NPR - How a Supreme Court justice's paragraph put the Voting Rights Act in more dangerAP - Court ruling backs tribes' effort to force lawmakers to redraw North Dakota legislative boundariesDemocracy Docket - 8th Circuit Greenlights Redraw of North Dakota Legislative Map To Comply With Voting Rights ActU.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals -  APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Louisiana Illuminator - 5th Circuit denies Louisiana's appeal in congressional redistricting caseLouisiana Illuminator - Louisiana Legislature gets time to draw congressional map in third redistricting sessionBrennan Center for Justice - The Newest Attack on the Voting Rights ActGroups Taking Action:ACLU, NAACP Legal Defence Fund, Native American Rights Fund,  Power Coalition for Equity and JusticePlease follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #VotingRightsAct #EndGerrymandering #NativeVote 

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 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a major victory to farmers when it ruled the Environmental Protection Agency must base its decisions on sound science and the law. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight, we’re not dealing with any cases to dissect, so we’ll be focusing on other activities. We do, however, have a case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that concerns civil commitment. We’ve also got some articles and comments to discuss. [4:51] A listener expresses gratitude for addressing their issue and questions the possibility […]

Ep232: Our friend and compensation aficionado Michael Maciekowich joins the program to offer insights into Pay Equity and Pay Transparency. Is your organization conducting pay equity audits? How much of the results should be shared with the staff? And how can you make pay transparency part of your compensation strategy? All this and more on This Week at Work. Lawyer on the Clock: 6:11 - A new law was signed last year to begin the middle of this year called the Pump Act: Provide Urgent Material Protections for Nursing Mothers Act. Here's a link to the updated DOL poster: Fact Sheet #73: Break Time for Nursing Mothers under the FLSA | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov) 8:15 - The EEOC has issued new guidance on employer use of artificial intelligence, and making sure AI does inadvertently discriminate.  13:14 - The Eighth Circuit Court issued a ruling regarding ADA accommodations as it relates to service animals. Philburt's Phorum: 15:55 - Monique surprises us with a less-than-compelling argument on why she can be used for unbiased recruiting… and become a cohost. You'll have to watch to see if Phil and Bert are swayed.  The Employers' Lounge 19:56 - As pay transparency laws are going into effect, if you haven't already been transparent with your ranges, it's time to really look at if you have issues with pay equity. Are your pay ranges based on performance or experience or other factors?  24:33 - If you do find any discrepancies in your pay structure, it's best to work with your labor attorney who will work with us to immediately start a more detailed audit and provide a report.   Host(s):  Phil Brandt, President and CEO, AAIM Employers' Association Burt Garland, Shareholder, Ogletree Deakins   Special Guest(s):  Michael Maciekowich, National Director, Astron Solutions   Powered by AAIM Employers' Association and Ogletree Deakins, a Feature Group USA production 

U.S. Trade Representative and Ag Secretary evaluate Mexico's amendments to decree to ban import and purchase of biotech commodities, and Eighth Circuit Court hears arguments for reinstatement of chlorpyrifos tolerances.

A federal court says the Biden Administration does not have the authority to force Christian doctors to perform gender transition surgeries.  Attorney Joe Davis with Beckett Law shares a few case details, along with the wider impact of the ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lois Jenson's courage and tenacity have made her a historic figure in the battle against sexual harassment. She was the lead plaintiff in the first class-action sexual harassment lawsuit -- a case that inspired the 2005 movie North Country. I spoke with her in 2018, at the height of the #MeToo movement, for an in-depth Wavemaker Conversation. I've decided to repost the conversation now, for historical context, in light of the release of She Said, the new movie about Harvey Weinstein. Jenson was one of the first four women miners in the Eveleth Taconite Mine in northern Minnesota. In our Wavemaker Conversation, Jenson shares with me the details of what a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals called the “record of human indecency [that] sought to destroy the human psyche as well as the human spirit" of Jenson and the other female miners. Among other things, Jenson recalls the good guys at the mine who, she says, far outnumbered the bad guys — including some who urged her to keep up her fight. Getting to know Lois Jenson during this Wavemaker Conversation has been a source of inspiration for me. I hope it will be for you too.

Lois Jenson's courage and tenacity have made her a historic figure in the battle against sexual harassment. She was the lead plaintiff in the first class-action sexual harassment lawsuit -- a case that inspired the 2005 movie North Country. I spoke with her in 2018, at the height of the #MeToo movement, for an in-depth Wavemaker Conversation. I've decided to repost the conversation now, for historical context, in light of the release of She Said, the new movie about Harvey Weinstein. Jenson was one of the first four women miners in the Eveleth Taconite Mine in northern Minnesota. In our Wavemaker Conversation, Jenson shares with me the details of what a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals called the “record of human indecency [that] sought to destroy the human psyche as well as the human spirit" of Jenson and the other female miners. Among other things, Jenson recalls the good guys at the mine who, she says, far outnumbered the bad guys — including some who urged her to keep up her fight. Getting to know Lois Jenson during this Wavemaker Conversation has been a source of inspiration for me. I hope it will be for you too.

After reviewing the background of the current moratorium on federal student loan payments and the Biden Administration's decision to grant loan forgiveness, we discuss two recent decisions that have paused the Administration's ability to proceed with forgiveness. We first analyze the Texas federal district court decision vacating the forgiveness program, including the court's standing analysis and application of the “major questions doctrine.” Next, we discuss the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel decision enjoining the forgiveness program pending resolution of an appeal filed by six state attorneys general whose challenge to the program had been dismissed by a Missouri federal district court for lack of standing. We also look at the Administration's likely next steps in the two cases, the prospects for Supreme Court review, and whether the payments moratorium is likely to continue beyond its scheduled January 2023 expiration. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Tom Burke, a partner in the Group.

She was probably Donald Trump's best chance for a "Stop the Steal" candidate to win on Election Day. But according to the exit polls, Kari Lake lost independent voters, lost moderates, and even lost 9% of Republicans. Plus, Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan flops in court again, this time at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support Us Here! --> https://anchor.fm/politicana/support Hello and welcome to the Politicana Podcast, where Tyler, Prateek, and Nick discuss all things Politics! We hope you've enjoyed the first 100 episodes. New episodes will be uploaded at the beginning of every week (Typically Monday), so stay tuned and follow us on your favorite podcasting platform to be notified when new episodes are available. This is a fun one folks; sit back, relax, and enjoy! Please email Backofthemob@gmail.com with any comments, questions, or inquiries. -- Topics And Timestamps -- 1:00 - UK Prime Minister Liz Truss resigns after 44 days, becoming the shortest PM in UK's history after failing to deliver on Tax Cuts Plan U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned Thursday following a failed tax-cutting budget that rocked financial markets and which led to a revolt within her own Conservative Party. Truss was in office for just 44 days, making her the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. 8:40 - Turkey's foreign minister slams the US for ‘bullying' Saudi Arabia after OPEC+ announces oil production cuts OPEC+ announced last week that it would produce two million barrels of oil less a day starting in November, curbing supply in an already tight market despite pressure from the US and other nations to increase output. After the announcement, US President Joe Biden said “there will be consequences'' for American relations with Saudi Arabia after the OPEC+ move. “We see that a country has threatened Saudi Arabia, especially recently. 17:10 - Jan. 6 panel subpoenas Trump, demanding testimony of what happened on that day The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol formally issued an extraordinary subpoena to Donald Trump on Friday, demanding testimony from the former president who lawmakers say “personally orchestrated” a multi-part effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Also note, Former top Trump White House advisor Steve Bannon was sentenced to four months in jail on Friday, for defying a subpoena from the Jan 6th panel. 28:15 - Federal appeals court temporarily blocks Biden student debt relief plan The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily blocked President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan — halting any debt from being erased. 43:30 - Biden makes an appeal to win the Democratic coalition on November 8th by listing several issues. 46:15 - Mike Pence teases for a possible run for president himself while touring states that hold early presidential contests. Former Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday appeared to hold back from supporting Donald Trump if the former president were to run again in 2024 and become the Republican nominee. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/politicana/support

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay while it considers an appeal from six Republican-led states to abandon the program entirely

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay while it considers an appeal from six Republican-led states to abandon the program entirely

Fewer Eastern Iowa youth charged after changes made to police programs in schoolshttps://www.thegazette.com/k/fewer-eastern-iowa-youth-charged-after-changes-made-to-police-programs-in-schools/ Changes made to the Cedar Rapids schools' resource officer program — police in schools — is contributing to fewer children being charged with a crime in schools and decreasing the racial disparity of those complaints, according to data from the Iowa Department of Human Rights.There has been a 49 percent reduction in complaints made in schools in the 6th Judicial District — Linn, Johnson, Tama, Benton, Jones and Iowa counties — since 2019. There also has been a reduction in racial disparity with Black students making up 33.9 percent of complaints, down from 53.9 percent in 2019.Amid legal battle, Cedar Rapids to drop racial requirement for Citizen Review Board membershiphttps://www.thegazette.com/local-government/amid-legal-battle-cedar-rapids-to-drop-racial-requirement-for-citizen-review-board-membership/ The city of Cedar Rapids is preparing to eliminate a rule requiring that five of the nine-member Citizen Review Board identify as people of color. The move comes after a federal judge blocked enforcement of the policy pending the outcome of a lawsuit alleging the rule is racially discriminatory.According to a draft policy shared with the board Thursday, the amended ordinance states the mayor and City Council shall “strive to include members from a diverse background,” including people who identify as a racial or ethnic minority. The change will do away with the requirement that the board include a specific number of people who identify as people of color.U.S. District Court Judge C.J. Williams issued a ruling last week that bars enforcement of the rule pending the outcome of Cedar Rapids man Kevin Wymore's lawsuit against the city and Mayor Tiffany O'Donnell. Wymore, a white man, asserts in his lawsuit that the rule about who can serve on the board is racially discriminatory.Appeals court puts student loan relief program on holdhttps://www.thegazette.com/higher-education/gop-led-states-appealing-dismissal-of-suit-over-student-loan-relief/ A federal appeals court late Friday issued an administrative stay temporarily blocking President Joe Biden's plan to cancel billions of dollars in federal student loans.The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the stay while it considers a motion from six Republican-led states including Iowa to block the loan cancellation program.The stay ordered the Biden administration not to act on the program while it considers the appeal. But the order came just days after people began applying for loan forgiveness, so it was not clear yet how the stay would impact those have already applied.

Rania Khalek and Kevin Gosztola discuss the steady overturning of rights by courts in the United States judiciary system, including the Supreme Court. They spend time talking about a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a law requiring contractors in Arkansas to pledge their loyalty to Israel if they want to be given a contract. BECOME A SUBSCRIBER at Patreon.com/UnauthorizedDisclosure for access to the full episode.

The National Association of Realtors is hoping to bring a case before the Supreme Court on the use of “floor plans” for real estate deals. NAR and a coalition of real estate groups want the high court to overturn an appeals court ruling that claims the creation of a floor plan is a copyright violation, by anyone, including the homeowner who might want to post a floor plan online to help sell the home. (1)Hi, I'm Kathy Fettke and this is Real Estate News for Investors. If you like our podcast, please subscribe and leave us a review.The lawsuit was filed last year by Missouri-based Designworks Homes, and the company's owner, Charles James. They claim that two real estate companies violated copyright laws by creating floor plans to help with the sale of homes that James had built. Designworks lost the first case, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling saying that copyright law also applied to floor plans.Ruling Has Wide-Reaching ImplicationsThe ruling has wide-reaching implications for all sorts of real-estate related purposes. In a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court by NAR and other real estate groups, they claim that Congress specifically allowed for pictorial representations of homes by their owners when it created the Copyright Act of 1976. They also argue that:"Many home buyers rely on floor plans in real estate listings to decide whether to purchase a residence, and their ability to secure financing for that transaction is often contingent on an appraisal that requires the creation of a floor plan." The brief also describes other reasons a homeowner might need a floor plan, for things like renovations, installations, and the arranging of furniture. They are also useful for mortgages, tax assessments, property valuations and insurance coverage. Real Estate Coalition Appeal to Supreme CourtThe brief was submitted by NAR and a coalition of 18 other groups including Redfin, Zillow, the American Property Owners Alliance, and CoreLogic. They said in the brief that most Americans would be “startled” to hear they can't make a floor plan of their own home without violating copyright law. They say the ruling severely limits property rights and creates a scenario that invites frivolous lawsuits.It would also be a big disappointment to buyers and sellers. In NAR's recent 2021 Generational Trends Report, floor plans were third on the list of important website features for online homebuyers. Photos and listing details are the only two features listed higher than floor plans. (2)Floor Plan Popularity Among Buyers & SellersThe American Property Owners Alliance also cited its own research on the topic. In a survey conducted last month, it found that almost 90% of the respondents strongly agreed with the idea that homeowners should be able to create a floor plan of their home anytime they want.The case will go before the Supreme Court if four of the nine justices vote in favor of hearing the case and that won't happen until later this year. In the meantime, is it an issue to create and post floor plans right now? NAR's General Counsel Katie Johnson acknowledges the risk in the brief: She says: “Homeowners should be able to create and use floor plans without fear of litigation throughout the ownership and sale of their homes.” If you'd like to read more on this topic, you'll find links in the show notes at newsforinvestors.com.Also, please remember to hit the subscribe button, and leave a review!You can also join our real estate investor network for free at newsforinvestors.com. That gives you access to the Investor Portal where you'll find information on rental markets and sample property pro-formas. You can also connect with our experienced investment counselors, property teams, lenders, 1031 exchange facilitators, attorneys, CPAs and more.Thanks for listening. I'm Kathy Fettke.Links:1 -https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/nar-asks-supreme-court-to-protect-consumers-from-lawsuits-when-making-floor-plans-of-their-homes2 -https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2021-home-buyers-and-sellers-generational-trends-03-16-2021.pdf3 -https://propertyownersalliance.org/article/american-property-owners-alliance-supports-appeal-of-ruling-on-homeowners-use-of-floor-plans/

Monday April 11, 2022 - The Governor of Minnesota, Tom Waltz, issues 3 Executive Orders imposing and modifying a moratorium on residential evictions in the state. A property owner of rental units in Minnesota objected and filed an action in District Court, contending the Executive Orders violated their rights protected under the contract clause, the takings clause, the due process clauses, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as state law. The District Court dismissed the case - on all three grounds and the property owner appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court. On April 5, a unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a Minnesota state eviction moratorium likely qualifies as a taking of private property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Attorney Steven A. Leahy reviews this case for its important implications to private property rights. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/09/eighth-circuit-rules-eviction-moratoria-are-likely-to-be-takings-requiring-compensation-under-the-fifth-amendment/ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/minnesota-landlord-gets-covid-eviction-moratorium-suit-revived --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/steven-leahy1/message

This episode is also available as a blog post: https://tcpaworld.com/2022/03/29/vanishing-point-eighth-circuit-court-of-appeals-issues-atds-ruling-that-doesnt-quite-get-it/

In this episode, Laurie interviews Lynne Ingram, Judicial Candidate for Eighth Circuit Court of Davidson County, Adjunct Professor of Law. Join us as we talk about:  ✔️ How Lynne has had  to rise above adversity, injustice, and difficulties in order to help others ✔️ The importance of Lady Justice ✔️ Her passion for childcare and serving in the community ✔️ Why she is running for Eighth Circuit Court Judge Campaign Website: https://bit.ly/LynneIngram_for_Judge Company: Robinson Reagan & Young, LLCWebsite Address: law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/lynne-ingramLinked In: linkedin.com/in/lynne-ingram-166382160 The Child Care Alliance of Middle Tennessee https://www.cfmt.org  No Small Matter https://www.nosmallmatter.com/about-the-film   Connect With Us! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauriewithastory  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lauriewithastory  Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/lauriewithstory  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauriewithastory Https://www.lauriewithastory.com

Welcome back to America's leading higher education law podcast, EdUp Legal - part of the EdUp Experience Podcast Network! Enjoy this conversation with Neil Fulton, a "South Dakota" kid who was selected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to serve as a federal public defender for North Dakota and South Dakota. Dean Fulton now leads the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law, the state school in a rural state whose graduates benefit from the second-lowest debt load in the country. USD prides itself on attracting and educating students who seek to excel, serve and lead, and the focus on servant leadership means that many of the positions in government include alumni from the law school. The education offered now includes legal writing requirements every year, starting with a 1L practicum to complement the criminal law class, and prepares graduates to serve as generalists, so they are suited for a small town or solo practice, or anything else they seek to do in the private sector or through public interest. Dean Fulton discusses the deep, personal connection that students in their 80-person classes develop with the faculty who relish the engagement with, and mentorship of, their students. Finally, Dean Fulton shares his predictions for the future of legal education, and the hope that law schools become less homogenous, and more reflective of their geographic location and community legal needs, and their own identity as institutions. Thank you so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for your EdUp time! Connect with your host - Patty Roberts ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow EdUp on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening!

Welcome back to America's leading higher education law podcast, EdUp Legal - part of the EdUp Experience Podcast Network! Enjoy this conversation with Neil Fulton, a "South Dakota" kid who was selected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to serve as a federal public defender for North Dakota and South Dakota. Dean Fulton now leads the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law, the state school in a rural state whose graduates benefit from the second-lowest debt load in the country. USD prides itself on attracting and educating students who seek to excel, serve and lead, and the focus on servant leadership means that many of the positions in government include alumni from the law school. The education offered now includes legal writing requirements every year, starting with a 1L practicum to complement the criminal law class, and prepares graduates to serve as generalists, so they are suited for a small town or solo practice, or anything else they seek to do in the private sector or through public interest. Dean Fulton discusses the deep, personal connection that students in their 80-person classes develop with the faculty who relish the engagement with, and mentorship of, their students. Finally, Dean Fulton shares his predictions for the future of legal education, and the hope that law schools become less homogenous, and more reflective of their geographic location and community legal needs, and their own identity as institutions. Thank you so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for your EdUp time! Connect with your host - Patty Roberts ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow EdUp on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening!

“The Telephone Consumer Protection Act had humble beginnings,” our guest writes, “with the bill's sponsor explaining that the statute would permit consumers to bring small claims cases ‘without an attorney,' and provides for an ‘amount of damages … fair to both the consumer and the telemarketer.' Twenty-eight years after its enactment in 1991, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court's decision to reduce a $1.6 billion jury award in a TCPA class action to only $32 million because the former was ‘shockingly large' and ‘oppressive,' in violation of the Due Process Clause .....”Only $32 million!  I mean, why bother even getting out of bed? Joining me to discuss the evolution of the TCPA is Joseph A. Apatov (japatov@mcglinchey.com), a member of the McGlinchey Stafford law firm's Consumer Financial Services Litigation practice group. Based in their Fort Lauderdale office, Joe litigates on behalf of financial services clients in both state and federal courts, with an emphasis on defending banks, mortgage lenders and servicers, private-label card issuers, and automobile finance companies. Apologies for my trip down memory lane. Bear with me as I regale you with stories from the newsroom at Mealey's Litigation Reports and the team's anxious reliance on the "latest" technology: the facsimile machine. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much Joe enlightened you, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.  Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

Ransomware attacks crippled Scripps Health and Colonial Pipeline. Learn why Colonial Pipeline was able to recover quickly and Scripps Health in San Diego has not. San Diego Deputy District Attorney Ryan Karkenny, a member of the Computer and Technology Crime Hight-Tech Task Force (CATCH) joins the podcast to discuss ransomware attacks, internet scams, the dark web, cryptocurrency, and how to protect yourself using digital hygiene. Read this article by DA Summer Stephan for more information: Ransomware: Don't let bad digital hygiene paralyze your computerEach episode we examine the laws on the books; three are real, one is fake. Can you guess which court ruling is the fake?In Michigan, an appellate court upheld the trial court's admission of Facebook posts in a gang murder case, saying “there is nothing on the face of the posts that would suggest that they were faked or hacked.”The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FBI's monitoring of a dark web child porn website called “Playpen”, saying “the notion that innocent users would be on Playpen is hardly plausible.”The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the child pornography conviction of the defendant and said although the agent's laptop was infected with malware, the defendant “presented no evidence in support of his theory that ransomware on the agent's laptop planted child pornography on the defendant's laptop.”In Washington, an appellate court ruled that Bitcoin is a financial asset for purposes of state tax law, saying “Although virtual currencies such as Bitcoin do not generate cash flow for those who hold it, they are no different than other currencies which are considered financial assets."Disclaimer: The views expressed on this podcast are solely of the speakers and do not reflect the views of the Deputy DA's Association nor the District Attorney. Questions and comments can be emailed to crimenewsinsider@gmail.com.Featured in the Top 10 Criminal Law Podcasts!Website: https://sdddaa.net/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SanDiegoDDAsTwitter: @CrimeNewsInsidr, @SanDiegoDDAsMusic by: The Only Ocean - "Snake"Image by: Pixabay user Michael Gaida.

USD Associate Professor of Law Hannah Haksgaard Discusses South Dakota’s Early Homestead Days on Credit HourVERMILLION, S.D. – University of South Dakota Associate Professor of Law Hannah Haksgaard discussed her career and research into South Dakota’s early homesteading days on USD's podcast, Credit Hour.“When we gave women the right to homestead and economic control of their livelihood, we saw women developing a level of independence that they may not have had in the Eastern part of the country,” said Haksgaard. “In that sense, it’s not terribly surprising that suffrage—the women’s right to vote—started first on the Western frontier.”A University of California-Berkeley School of Law graduate, Haksgaard was an editor on the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice. Following law school, Haksgaard clerked for the Honorable Roberto Lange of the District of South Dakota and the Honorable Kermit Bye of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Haksgaard joined the USD Knudson School of Law faculty in 2016.Credit Hour is the University of South Dakota’s podcast highlighting the achievement, research and scholarship of its staff, students, alumni and faculty. Follow Credit Hour on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and www.usd.edu/podcast. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In today's News: Turkey rejects an American pastor’s appeal  Turkey’s constitutional court last week rejected as “inadmissible” American Pastor Andrew Brunson’s appeal over rights violation for unlawfully arresting him and exceeding the legal limit of his detention. He was imprisoned for his faith for two years in that country. Although he now lives in the United States, the prison sentence against Brunson, who was arrested in October 2016 and charged with espionage and committing crimes in the name of a terrorist organization as a non-member, remains. Brunson's appeal was made on the basis that his arrest was illegal and beyond the legal limit of detention.  Court rules in favor of a Christian club  A Christian afterschool ministry tied to The Moody Church in Chicago is sufficiently religious enough to qualify for an exemption from having to pay into a state insurance program, an appeals court ruled last week. A three-judge panel of the Appellate Court of Illinois on Wednesday upheld a lower court decision and ruled 2-1 that the By The Hand Club for Kids should have been given an exemption to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Act. The Illinois Department of Employment Security’s Board of Review concluded in 2017 that the By The Hand Club was not eligible for an exemption to the state unemployment insurance system. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Margaret McBride, the court ruled that the board of review failed to recognize the pervasive religious nature of the student club. This included the club requiring members and staff to be Christian, hosting Bible studies and chapel services and leading field trips to faith-based events like Christian music concerts.  Judges ask Supreme Court to revisit an abortion ruling  A three-judge panel on a federal appellate court struck down several pro-life laws in Arkansas, and two of the judges have called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its ruling in a major abortion case that upheld Roe v. Wade. The ruling by three judges on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals prevents two pro-life laws passed by the state in 2019 from going into effect. One of the laws prohibits abortions after 18 week’s gestation while the other prohibits abortion of a child based solely on a diagnosis of Down syndrome. Judge James Loken, a George H.W. Bush appointee who authored the opinion, cited the precedent set in the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey when upholding a lower court’s ruling blocking the Arkansas laws from going into effect. While the panel unanimously agreed that Supreme Court precedent required them to strike down the Arkansas laws, two of the judges urged the court to reconsider the finding of Casey. One of the judges, George W. Bush appointee Bobby Shepherd, shared his view that “good reasons exist for the (Supreme) Court to reevaluate its jurisprudence” in Casey.  Satanic Temple opposes burial for aborted babies  The Satanic Temple, a group that believes abortion is a “religious ritual” similar to communion or baptism, is fighting against a new Ohio law that ensures aborted babies receive a proper burial. WLWT 5 News reports the religious group slammed the law as a violation of the First Amendment last week and threatened to take legal action. Signed by Gov. Mike DeWine in December, the law requires the Ohio Department of Health to establish rules for the proper and humane burial or cremation of aborted babies’ bodies. It creates penalties for violations and requires abortion facilities to pay for the babies to be cremated or buried. Several states have similar laws in place, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law in 2019. Such laws not only ensure that aborted babies’ bodies are treated with dignity and respect, they also are a safeguard against abortion facilities trying to sell aborted baby body parts. However, the Satanic Temple claims the Ohio law violates their religious freedom. 

There appears to be a growing trend in the United States where insurers file malpractice suits against counsel retained to defend their insureds. When an insurer retains a defense lawyer to represent its insured only to find they are incompetent or committed malpractice in providing the defense, rather than admit the error in choosing a poor lawyer for the insured the insurer sues the lawyer for malpractice seeking reimbursement for the amount paid to indemnify the insured. https://zalma.com/blog Where the insurer retained defense counsel and there was no reservation of rights, courts have allowed the primary insurer to bring a cause of action against the attorney for malpractice, finding that the attorney represents the insurer, along with the insured, where they have common interests. Insurance defense counsel must manage their potential exposure to suits brought against them by insurers who ask them to defend insureds. This should cause defense counsel to reevaluate the limits of their malpractice policies and to understand all the potential parties who may bring a malpractice claim against them. Likewise, insurers should recognize their own exposure with respect to claims of vicarious liability. They must also select defense counsel with the utmost care and diligence because they may not be able to sue their chosen defense counsel if a mistake occurs. Insurers also need to make sure that the attorneys who represent their interests make appropriate disclosures to the insured's independent counsel. Great American attempted to sue its defense counsel for providing an incompetent defense to one of its insureds in Great American Insurance Co. v. Dover, Dixon Horn. The Eighth Circuit Court brought relief to the insurance defense bar when it refused to allow the insurer to successfully sue counsel—retained to defend an insured—for legal malpractice. The law of Arkansas only allows malpractice actions to be filed against those with whom the parties are in privity. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

In today's News: The Rev. Dr. Ray Halm called to Glory The Rev. Dr. Ray Halm, who served as president of Concordia University, Irvine (CUI), Calif., from 1980 to 1998, died Aug. 4. He was 79. Halm was the longest-serving president of CUI. Before becoming CUI president, he served congregations and schools in Indiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota as an LCMS teacher, administrator and pastor. He also served as vice-chairman of the LCMS Board for Higher Education, a member of the LCMS Blue Ribbon Task Force on Missions, and the Synod’s assistant secretary. Most recently, he acted as senior director of Concordia University Education Network while remaining an active ambassador for CUI. Marines cave to atheists The U.S. Marine Corps scheduled an annual training for military lawyers earlier this month, at which the Battle of Gettysburg would be discussed. The instructor for one portion of that training was supposed to be Jay Lorenzen, an Air Force veteran who taught for 10 years at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo. Lorenzen’s biography, provided to the military lawyers in advance of the training, included references to Christianity, including his affiliation with Campus Crusade for Christ, now known as “Cru”, and a couple of religious-themed courses he teaches in his spare time. Several of those lawyers complained to Mikey Weinstein, who heads up a secular, anti-christian group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, that Lorenzen was going to teach about religion. That allegation was false, but it didn’t matter. Jeremy Dys of First Liberty Institute said of the situation, “The Marine Corps bravely cancelled a speaker chosen to lead a discussion on the battlefield tactics and leadership lessons of Gettysburg based upon his expertise as a retired military officer and academy professor because that retired officer, in his speaker’s bio, confessed to be religious and associated with a religious organization.” Dismemberment abortion ban upheld Arkansas soon may be allowed to enforce a law to protect unborn babies from brutal dismemberment abortions after a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the state Ariday. The AP reports the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously vacated lower federal court injunction blocking the dismemberment abortion ban and three other pro-life state laws. The 2017 laws include the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from dismemberment abortion act, which protects nearly fully formed unborn babies from being brutally dismembered alive in the womb. These abortions typically are referred to as Dilation and Evacuation, or D&E, and are common in the second trimester when unborn babies are nearly fully developed. A second law, the Sex Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act, protects unborn babies from discriminatory sex-selection abortions. The other two laws involve requiring the remains of aborted babies to be buried or cremated and reporting evidence of the sexual abuse of young girls under 14 to authorities.

In today's News: New archbishop chosen for St. Louis Pope Francis has named Bishop Mitchell Rozanski of Springfield, Mass., as the next Archbishop of St. Louis, Succeeding Robert J. Carlson, who last year reached the mandatory retirement age of 75 and submitted his resignation to the pope. Rozanski, who will be formally installed on Aug. 25, will become the 10th archbishop of St. Louis, leading the region’s largest faith group, with more than 505,000 Roman Catholics spread over 179 parishes. Illinois taken to court In the aftermath of covid-19-related religious liberty lawsuits, the Thomas More Society has now sued the state of Illinois to challenge a law requiring all health insurance policies sold in the state to provide coverage for elective chemical and surgical abortions, with no exemptions, even for churches. Yesterday, the Thomas More Society filed a complaint in the Sangamon County Circuit Court, charging the state with abuses of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act in relation to the abortion insurance mandate. The case was filed on behalf of a Baptist church association, a dental practice and its owner, and a freight company and its owner. The lawsuit charges that Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker; the Department of Insurance, and its director Robert Muriel; have refused to protect the plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, which forbid them from funding and providing coverage for elective abortions. Satanic Temple loses in court States may inform women that life begins at conception before they go through with an abortion, a federal appeals court said this week. The case — a victory for pro-life advocates, unborn babies and mothers — involves a Missouri informed consent law and a challenge by “Judy Doe,” a member of the Satanic Temple. Doe claimed the law violated her religious freedom because she does not believe that “the life of each human being begins at conception.” That information is included in the Missouri informed consent booklet, which abortion facilities must offer women prior to an abortion. Yesterday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed doe’s case and allowed the law to stand. Churches defy a mayor's order First Liberty Institute and the Massachusetts Family Institute yesterday sent a letter to Somerville, Massachusetts Mayor Joseph Curtatone informing him that several churches in the city will immediately resume in-person church services on Sunday. Curtatone arbitrarily requires all places of worship in somerville to limit attendance to no more than 10 congregants. On May 18, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker issued order 33 providing that churches and other places of worship “may open [their] premises to workers . . . And the public” so long as such places of worship followed specific health and safety guidelines and limit to 40 percent occupancy. Further, Baker’s order clearly states that “[n]o municipal or other local authority should adopt or enforce any workplace health or safety rule to address covid-19 that is in addition to, stricter than, or otherwise in conflict with any covid-19 workplace safety rule adopted in [order 33].”

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Arizona issued an important decision in the Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix court case, another case located squarely at the intersection of religious freedom and the new sexual orthodoxy. The case dates back to 2013, when the city of Phoenix, in the name of public accommodations, enacted an ordinance prohibiting any discrimination against persons based on “sexual orientation,” among other things. The ordinance also clearly prohibited “directly or indirectly [displaying, circulating, publicizing or mailing] any … communication which states or implies that any facility or service shall be refused … because of a ‘person's status.'” In 2016 the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a pre-enforcement challenge on behalf of Brush & Nib Studio, a Christian-owned business that creates custom wedding invitations. What that means is though the studio had not yet been asked to prepare invitations for a same-sex wedding, it was only a matter of time before they would be forced to make the same kind of choice that people like Jack Philips have had to. That choice, ADF argued, would violate Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA). ADF also claimed the advertising restrictions violated the proprietors' free speech rights. On Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, sided with Brush & Nib and ADF. That's good news. Even better news is that, just like the decision issued by the 8th circuit court two weeks ago, the majority opinion by Justice Andrew Gould was loaded with incredibly clear and helpful language about the nature of our religious freedoms. “The enduring strength of the First Amendment,” Gould wrote, “is that it allows people to speak their minds and express their beliefs without government interference. But here, the City effectively cuts off [Brush & Nibs'] right to express their beliefs about same-sex marriage by telling them what they can and cannot say.” Rejecting the city's argument that Brush & Nib's “custom wedding invitations are fungible products, like a hamburger or a pair of shoes,” Justice Gould acknowledged the “many hours” Brush & Nib owners Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski spend “designing and painting custom paintings, writing words and phrases, and drawing images and calligraphy.” Because “Duka and Koski are involved in every aspect of designing and creating the invitations,” he continued, “and they retain substantial . . . artistic control over the messages that are expressed in the invitations,” they are more than mere “scribes.” Thus, to compel them to create custom invitations is to compel them to endorse the message in those invitations, which the Arizona constitution forbids.   This strong language, in addition to the strong language issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Christian videographers Angel and Carl Larsen in their case against a Minnesota's SOGI law, means that the courts have clarified the sort of protections that speech should have in our society. You might remember that the Supreme Court was hesitant to issue the same sort of sweeping language in Jack Phillip's case a few years ago, focusing instead on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's outright hostility. I'm glad the court smacked the commission down for their hostility, but the question of speech protection remains, and that makes this Arizona ruling so important. As ADF's Kristen Waggoner put it, Justice Gould's opinion included ADF's arguments “perfectly.” Though Gould's opinion was specifically grounded in Arizona's constitution, it is still applicable to the federal one. Brush & Nib v. Phoenix can serve as a kind of guide map for how other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, can and should think about the protections religious speech deserve. Like Waggoner, I am “thanking God for his favor and praying we are gaining momentum” for the Supreme Court's upcoming October term.

War - what is it good for? Slaughtering people, and nothing more. What's in the News with stories on Federal Reserve Bitcoin, national cannabis legalization, ICE injustice, Stingray bans in NH, cops walk free - again, and filming cops. And, How to Live a LAVA Lifestyle on a town that lost all of their cops. This episode is brought to you by Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom, helping you to become a smarter and more informed libertarian than ever before, for just 24 cents a day. WHAT'S RUSTLING MY JIMMIES Just like the song says, war is good for nothing, yet we have found ourselves in a perpetual war in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lybia, and Somalia. And this doesn't count our domestic wars against drugs, poverty, etc. We have been on a war footing for decades now, and it is only getting worse, not better. Recall during the election between Trump and Clinton, so many people, even some libertarians, chose to vote for Trump because he would keep us out of World War III. I wonder what those folks think now that Trump is inching us closer and closer to a war with North Korea every day. Of course, I can't lay all of the blame on Trump, as Kim Jong-un has certainly been pushing buttons left and right, firing 14 missiles already in 2017, including one at the end of July that apparently has the ability to cover the entire land mass of the United States. WHAT'S IN THE NEWS In End the Fed news, a former Federal Reserve employee was sentenced Friday to 12 months probation and a $5,000 fine after pleading guilty in October to installing unauthorized software on a computer server at the U.S. central bank. In cannabis news, Senator Cory Booker, Democrat from New Jersey, introduced a bill that could legalize marijuana nationwide, removing marijuana from the federal scheduling system completely.  In unfit to exist news, a US citizen who was held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for three years was denied compensation by an appeals court.  This episode is brought to you by Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom, helping you to become a smarter and more informed libertarian than ever before, for just 24 cents a day. In New Hampshire, It's like this, too news, New Hampshire is the latest state to ban the use of Stingrays to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations became law without the governor's signature. The new statute not only protects privacy in New Hampshire but will also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state. In government investigates itself news, exposing the double standard between police and civilians, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced Wednesday that no criminal charges will be filed against the eight LAPD officers responsible for nearly killing an innocent woman and her daughter when they "accidentally" fired 107 bullets at them.  In film the police news, contradicting the rulings of six others federal courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals annihilated free speech rights in upholding a district court decision stating citizens do not have the right to film public officials — politicians, police, and others — in public. HOW TO LIVE A LAVA LIFESTYLE One way to choose to live free is to move. I've talked a lot about moving to New Hampshire, which is what my family decided to do to help achieve liberty in our lifetimes, but there are other places you can move as well to lower your coercion level. Case in point: Sand Point, Alaska, is an Aleutian island town of about 1,000 that swells by several hundred people during the summer commercial fishing and processing season. Until mid-July, it had a police force of three officers and a police chief. The entire police force of Sand Point quit in July, leaving the town without any law enforcement presence.   

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denied a Learning Center run by Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. (Trinity) federal funding to refurbish children’s playgrounds on the grounds of religious affiliation. The DNR offers Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grants to organizations that qualify for resurfacing of playgrounds. Though the licensed pre- school Learning Center incorporates religious instruction into is curriculum, the school is open to all children. Trinity’s Learning Center was denied funding based on Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution; the section reads: “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.” -- Trinity claimed that the DNR infringed upon their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and speech. The district court dismissed Trinity’s allegations, claiming that Trinity failed to file a specific claim. Trinity responded by amending its complaint to an allegation that other religious institutions had previously received the DNR funding; nevertheless, the district court denied the motions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision, agreeing with both the dismissal and denial of motions. -- In a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trinity Lutheran. David Cortman of the Alliance Defending Freedom discussed the decision and its significance. -- Featuring: David A. Cortman, Lead counsel in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denied a Learning Center run by Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. (Trinity) federal funding to refurbish children’s playgrounds on the grounds of religious affiliation. The DNR offers Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grants to organizations that qualify for resurfacing of playgrounds. Though the licensed pre- school Learning Center incorporates religious instruction into is curriculum, the school is open to all children. Trinity’s Learning Center was denied funding based on Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution; the section reads: “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.” -- Trinity claimed that the DNR infringed upon their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and speech. The district court dismissed Trinity’s allegations, claiming that Trinity failed to file a specific claim. Trinity responded by amending its complaint to an allegation that other religious institutions had previously received the DNR funding; nevertheless, the district court denied the motions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision, agreeing with both the dismissal and denial of motions. -- The question at the heart of the case is whether or not the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause protect religious institutions from discrimination regarding the distribution of public funds. Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute and Hannah C. Smith of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty joined us after oral arguments to discuss the case and the potential weight of the precedent set by decision. -- Featuring: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Hannah C. Smith, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in American Farm Bureau v. EPA.  This case involved American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council bringing an action in federal court to challenge EPA's decision to find information involving concentrated animal feeding operation operators was not exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In this episode, Paul walks the audience through the federal district court's decision and the Eighth Circuit's decision. If you have questions for Paul contact him at lgoering@umd.edu, tweet him @aglawPaul or 301-405-3541. Materials discussed in this episode: Paul Goeringer, Constitutional Standing: When Can a Party Actually Bring a Lawsuit? (Feb. 2015). Paul Goeringer, Freedom of Information Act Exemption Does Not Allow EPA to Release Aggregated CAFO Information (Sept. 2016).

January 11, 2016 guests Marcus Jarvis, author of A Simple Guide to the Immigration Laws of the United States, will share helpful advice and comment on recent in-the-news conversations about immigration reform. Marcus was admitted to practice law in the State of Minnesota in 2002. He practices Immigration Law before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its related administrative agencies; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); Federal District Court of Minnesota; and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been admitted to the Federal Tax Court in Washington D. C.  www.m-jlawltd.com Lara Little says "Night sweats suck. And 80% of all women get them." Throughout her fashion career, Lara has been committed to using innovation to solve women’s problems as their bodies change due to having children, aging and other health issues. Lara invented her Lusomé technology with one of the world’s leading textile mills so women no longer have to suffer from night sweats. Lusomé is a beautifully designed sleepwear brand using the most innovative moisture management technology possible for naturally blended fabrics. Lusomé with dryLon™ provides luxuriously soft fabrics expertly engineered for ultimate comfort.  www.lusome.com  

Download the MP3 file of this posting. Saab v. Home Depot U.S.A., WL0249463601, No. 06-8014 (8th Cir. November 22, 2006) Automotive engineering versus mega home improvement? Nope, but this one might be just as interesting, in a perverse sort of way that only our brilliant CAFA aficionados would appreciate. The Eighth Circuit differentiates between traditional complete diversity jurisdiction and CAFA’s new minimal diversity jurisdiction in the context of appealing a remand related decision.The Eighth Circuit handed down a short opinion regarding the appeal provisions of CAFA and whether they are applicable to cases removed to federal court under traditional, complete diversity jurisdiction. This may be an important appellate court decision because it draws a distinction between complete diversity jurisdiction and minimal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, where other courts have tended to blur this distinction, particularly in the context of jurisdictional burden of proof.  On November 22, 2006, United States Circuit Judge Bright, writing for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, handed down a short opinion regarding CAFA. The Judge did not state the facts of this case, filed in Missouri state court by David Saab on behalf of himself and others against Home Depot. We can only imagine that the plaintiff had some terrible experience with a Do It Yourself project.  The judge simply stated that Home Depot removed the class action to district court arguing that the parties were diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00. The removal notice listed traditional, complete diversity jurisdiction as the ground for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The district court agreed with Home Depot and denied Saab’s motion to remand the case back to Missouri state court. Saab petitioned the Eighth Circuit to accept his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), enacted under CAFA. The Eighth Circuit determined, however, that CAFA’s appeal provision does not permit an appeal from the denial of a motion to remand when the class action has been removed to federal court on the basis of traditional, complete diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a).  Saab argued that CAFA’s § 1453 should be viewed expansively to give federal courts of appeal jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of a motion to remand in ANY class action. The Eighth Circuit stated that this argument does not differentiate between class actions removed pursuant to 1332(a) – complete diversity jurisdiction, or 1332(d) – CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction. (Editors' Note:   The Eighth Circuit here differentiated between the provisions governing complete diversity jurisdiction and CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction, whereas other courts of appeal have broadly applied Section 1332(a) jurisprudence and precedent to 1332(d) minimum jurisdiction questions under CAFA in a manner that the Editors believe leads to incorrect results since the objectives behind the two types of jurisdiction are opposite. The objective behind complete diversity jurisdiction is to limit access to the federal courts, and the objective behind minimal diversity jurisdiction is to expand access.)  Finally, the Eighth Circuit joined with the Fifth Circuit in Patterson v. Morris and Wallace v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., in its holding. (Editors' Note:  See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Patterson posted on June 5, 2006 and the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Wallace posted on May 22, 2006). The court stated that it must limit § 1453(c)’s appellate review provisions to only those class actions brought under CAFA. According to the Court, that reading is consistent with the legislative history of CAFA, which includes the observation that “new sub-section 1453(c) provides discretionary appellate review of remand orders under this legislation, but also imposes time limits.” (emphasis in original). The Eighth Circuit then dismissed the plaintiff’s petition for permission to appeal.  No doubt that the plaintiff felt pretty lowe when his appeal was dismissed. 

David A. Szwak, a native of Baton Rouge, was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in 1991. He is a double LSU graduate having earned his Bachelor of Science in Quantitative Business Analysis at LSU and his law degree from LSU Law Center. He is a consumer credit attorney and partner with Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak & Winchell, in Shreveport. Mr. Szwak is admitted to practice in Louisiana, as well as the federal courts of the Eastern, Western and Middle Districts of Louisiana, the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Northern,Eastern and Southern Districts of Texas, the District of Arizona, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. He also frequently practices pro hac vice in most other federal and state jurisdictions. He has authored many legal articles, frequently lectures, and regularly litigates consumer credit, privacy, defamation and fraud cases. He also provides expert witness services in Fair Credit Reporting Act cases and related issues. His services include consultation, evaluation, assistance in drafting pleadings and discovery, depositions, expert reports and analysis, and testimony. A listing of his expert witness cases is available on his law firm web site www.bjswlaw.com. www.myfaircredit.com