Podcasts about eleventh circuit

With the passing of Justice David Souter, the legal establishment has lost one of its most honored members.  In this and our next episode, we pay tribute to the man and his work with the help of an amazing roster of his former clerks, friends, and colleagues.  We begin with Judge Kevin Newsom from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Dean of the Yale Law School, Heather Gerken, who share their experience working closely with the Justice on the Supreme Court, as well as his role in their lives that did and does inspire them.  Meanwhile, Akhil, who considered the Justice a good friend and role model, offers an in-depth look at various aspects of the Justice, including why a Justice who disagreed with Akhil on method and, in many cases, substance, nevertheless is regarded by him as one of the great Justices in American history.  In our next episode we will have more guests whom we will reveal in the discussion during this episode.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Fear of authoritarian targeting PFRs; Determined ex-PFRs can succeed remotely; Eleventh Circuit finds Alabama law overbroad; state must allow individualized review for parents’ rights; DOJ ends PREA funding, increases prison sexual abuse risks. [0:00] Intro[03:08] Could Trump Target PFRs? Exploring Fears and Reality[11:16] Navigating Parole Restrictions: Surviving Michigan's PFR Policies[18:10] Alabama’s Parenting Ban: When Rights...

In this episode, Jordan discusses a recent Fifth Circuit case that addressed trade secret identification and proof of misappropriation at trial, and an Eleventh Circuit case addressing whether and how trade secret misappropriation damages can be limited by contract.

Why is the Supreme Court making some of its most impactful decisions behind closed doors? In this episode, Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate welcome Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the bestselling book The Shadow Docket, to discuss the rise of stealth rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn why unsigned and unexplained decisions—affecting everything from immigration to abortion—are becoming more common and why every American should be paying attention.

This week, we're doing a deep dive into the history surrounding Americans under 21 buying guns. That's why we've got gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck on the show. He's currently representing a client who is fighting Hawaii's age restrictions. In the wake of the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's gun sales ban for those under 21 by pointing to how contract law limited the same age group's ability to buy guns, he researched the question. He argues the evidence contradicts the Eleventh Circuit's holding. He said rulings from the Founding Era suggest those under 21 couldn't enter into contracts for things that weren't necessities, but that was actually a pretty broad exception. He said most guns would have been considered necessities because they were needed to hunt, perform mandated militia service, and provide for general security. Beck also gave a working-lawyers view of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence and where it's headed. He described the details of his latest case at the High Court and what the cert application process is like. Special Guest: Alan Beck.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I recap the en banc Ninth Circuit's newest decision upholding California's ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and its much-discussed video dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke. We also talk about a separate Ninth Circuit panel's ruling striking down Hawaii's unique restrictions on handgun sales. Finally, we cover a long awaited en banc Eleventh Circuit decision dealing with Florida's post-Parkland ban on gun sales to adults under the age of 21. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: Mike Willever.

Key Points: Arkansas is requiring public and charter schools to provide annual gun safety education to all students, with parental consent needed for hands-on training. The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in NRA v. Bondi upholding Florida’s ban on firearm sales to individuals aged 18-20 has been criticized for ignoring historical context and relevant laws. The […] The post This Week in Guns 457 – Big Federal Gun Law Updates & States Being Silly appeared first on Firearms Radio Network.

Key Points: Arkansas is requiring public and charter schools to provide annual gun safety education to all students, with parental consent needed for hands-on training. The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in NRA v. Bondi upholding Florida's ban on firearm sales to individuals aged 18-20 has been criticized for ignoring historical context and relevant laws. The Supreme Court heard arguments in Smith & Wesson Brands vs. Mexico, where Mexico's attempt to sue American gun manufacturers under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was met with skepticism from the justices.

Key Points: Arkansas is requiring public and charter schools to provide annual gun safety education to all students, with parental consent needed for hands-on training. The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in NRA v. Bondi upholding Florida’s ban on firearm sales to individuals aged 18-20 has been criticized for ignoring historical context and relevant laws. The […] The post This Week in Guns 457 – Big Federal Gun Law Updates & States Being Silly appeared first on Firearms Radio Network.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Jason Manning and Joe DeFazio, partners in Troutman Pepper Locke's Consumer Financial Services practice group. They provide crucial updates on two significant litigation topics: the ongoing litigation surrounding so-called junk fees, particularly convenience fees, and the implications of New York's Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). They delve into the recent Eleventh Circuit decision on convenience fees, the broader impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's stance on junk fees, and the challenges posed by FAPA for mortgage lenders and servicers. Listeners will gain insights into the current legal landscape, potential future developments, and practical advice for navigating these complex issues. Don't miss this essential discussion for anyone in the consumer financial services industry.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a sweeping federal statute requiring individuals with significant interests in LLCs and other entities registered under state or tribal law to disclose personal information, unless explicitly exempt. This information is stored in a Treasury Department database maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and accessible by the IRS, federal and foreign law enforcement, and intelligence agencies without court approval. (State authorities must obtain judicial authorization.) Affecting over 32 million entities, the CTA imposes severe penalties for noncompliance, including fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment. Initially set to take effect on January 1, 2025, for pre-existing entities, the implementation timeline has been disrupted by legal challenges.Join us as we delve into the constitutional controversies surrounding the CTA. Our speaker, Prof. Thomas Lee, was the lead lawyer in NSBA v. Yellen, the first of the CTA lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Alabama in November 2022. The district court issued a permanent injunction on March 1, 2024, igniting a wave of similar lawsuits, including Texas Top Cop Shop, where a nationwide preliminary injunction was granted in May 2024.The Supreme Court is currently considering a stay application in Texas Top Cop Shop, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision on the government's appeal in NSBA v. Yellen remains pending. Prof. Lee will provide insights into these pivotal cases and their broader implications for federal regulatory authority and individual rights under the Constitution.Featuring: Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law

Civil Rights: Can a health insurance provider be held liable under Title VII for denying coverage for gender-affirming care? - Argued: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 19:33:49 EDT

On January 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling which vacated the so-called ​“one-to-one” consent requirement for marketing calls and texts adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its implementing rules for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In its ruling, the court held that the rule adopted by the FCC exceeded the agency's statutory authority because it conflicted with the plain meaning of ​“prior express consent” in the TCPA. Below we summarize the court's ruling and explain what it means for businesses going forward. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/eleventh-circuit-vacates-tcpa-11-consent-rule Alysa Hutnik ahutnik@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8603 www.kelleydrye.com/people/alysa-z-hutnik Jenny Wainwright jwainwright@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8649 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/jennifer-rodden-wainwright Hosted by Simone Roach Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has vacated the FCC's "one-to-one" consent rule for marketing calls and texts, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The decision eliminates stricter consent requirements that the FCC introduced in December 2023 to target lead generation practices. Key Takeaways: • 1:1 Consent Rule Overturned – The court ruled that consent does not have to be granted on a per-business basis. • FCC Exceeded Its Authority – The agency's attempt to redefine consent went beyond its legal power. • Immediate Business Impact – The previous TCPA consent rules remain in effect, but businesses should monitor carrier and platform responses. • Next Steps – The case is remanded to the FCC, but an appeal is unlikely. Read more: https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/eleventh-circuit-vacates-tcpa-11-consent-rule

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do Florida S.B. 7072's content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment, and do the law's individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. Under precedents like Miami Herald v Tornillo, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v Public Utilities Commission, Turner Broadcasting v FCC, and Hurley v Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, when a private entity engages in expressive activity, including curating others' speech, government interference with that activity implicates the First Amendment. Specifically, the First Amendment protects entities engaged in expressive activities, including compiling and curating others' speech, from being forced to accommodate messages they prefer to exclude. This protection applies even when the compiler includes most items and excludes only a few. The government cannot justify interfering with a private speaker's editorial choices merely by claiming an interest in improving or balancing the marketplace of ideas. These principles likely apply to the content moderation practices of social media platforms like Facebook's News Feed, indicating that state laws regulating these practices may face significant First Amendment hurdles. However, this analysis may not apply to all of the laws' applications, so it is important for courts to conduct a thorough examination of the laws' full scope and their constitutional and unconstitutional applications in a proper facial challenge analysis. Texas's regulation of social media platforms' content moderation policies aims to alter the speech displayed on these platforms, reflecting the state's disapproval of the platforms' current content selection and moderation practices. However, under the First Amendment, Texas cannot impose its preferences on how private entities curate and present speech, as this would amount to government control over the expression of ideas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion in full and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in part and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Civil Rights: May Florida prohibit "gender affirming care" for minors and restrict the provision of such care for adults? - Argued: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:43:51 EDT

Over the past four years, state attorneys general have brought many significant lawsuits against the Biden administration. From border enforcement and student loan forgiveness, to Title IX rules and environmental regulations, states have brought the executive branch into court over divisive legal questions. Some of these suits remain active. This panel of experts will recap the most notable cases of the past presidential term and discuss what the recent election could mean for the future.Featuring:Mr. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, OhioMr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson GrimsleyHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

It has been almost ten years since the advent of the ‘progressive prosecutor,’ local elected district attorneys and attorneys general throughout the country who ran on and then implemented a revolutionary new model of public prosecution. If states are the “laboratories of democracy” then there plainly has been a series of bold experiments testing the efficacy of this new model of law enforcement. Was it a success, or a failure? Has public safety and order been promoted, or jeopardized? Or is it all simply too soon to tell? Please join us as we present a panel of distinguished current and former elected officials, academics, and other experts in the field as they discuss all facets of these important questions of law, order, and the public interest.Featuring:Hon. John Creuzot, District Attorney, DallasProf. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationHon. Ray Tierney, District Attorney, Suffolk County, New YorkModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Theories of nuisance, market-share, and consumer protection liability have become increasingly popular among plaintiffs who cannot trace an alleged harm to any specific defendant. Recently, states and local governments have sought to impose market-share liability on companies based on allegedly misleading statements (or silence) about the potential effects of their products. These cases raise difficult legal issues that remain underdeveloped because the risk of a crippling damages award often pressures companies to settle claims early in litigation.Featuring:Mr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLPMr. Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard was the most important decision on affirmative action in generations, banning preferential treatment based on race in higher education admissions. How are colleges and universities complying with SFFA? What else will be necessary in order to ensure compliance? What does the next generation of cases look like? Outside of higher education, what will be the effect of SFFA? Does it apply to employment and contracting? Does it apply to gender as well as race? What does it say about disparate impact?Featuring:Prof. Peter Arcidiacono, William Henry Glasson Professor of Economics, Duke UniversityProf. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law; Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, George Mason University Prof. Kyle Rozema, Professor of Law, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program and Academic Placement, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Sonja Starr, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law & Criminology, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Republican Mark Robinson hopes to be North Carolina's next governor. Trump hopes he will go away and stop dragging down the ticket. Meanwhile, the documents case hits the Eleventh Circuit, and outside amici are asking the appeals court to disqualify Judge Aileen Cannon. And in Arizona, a federal judge told Mark Meadows to GTFO with his claim that he was doing official White House business when he tried to steal the state's electors in 2020. Subscribers will get a deep dive into the sh*tshow that is Trump Media Technology Group stock. Links: US v. Combs [Docket via Court Listener] ​​https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69167625/united-states-v-combs/ ‘I'm a black NAZI!': NC GOP nominee for governor made dozens of disturbing comments on porn forum https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/kfile-mark-robinson-black-nazi-pro-slavery-porn-forum -TMTG/DJT Form S-4 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849635/000119312524036093/d408563ds4a.htm TMTG Pitch Deck https://tmtgcorp.com/static/tmtg-company-overview-f6cfb16513c78a61681aea3bbdae7a78.pdf US v. Trump [Eleventh Circuit Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68955302/united-states-v-donald-trump/ -Meadows AZ state court indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1393979/gov.uscourts.azd.1393979.1.1_1.pdf Arizona v. Meadows Order of Remand https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1393979/gov.uscourts.azd.1393979.21.0_2.pdf US v. Torkington https://casetext.com/case/us-v-torkington  ProPublica, Judge Aileen Cannon Failed to Disclose a Right-Wing Junket https://www.propublica.org/article/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-documents-case-travel-disclosures Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

Remove Judge Aileen Cannon! An amicus brief has just been filed with the Eleventh Circuit, calling on the appeals court to finally remove Judge Cannon from the Trump classified documents case — a step that Jack Smith did not explicitly ask for when he finally appealed her ludicrous dismissal of the Florida indictment. Noah Bookbinder, President for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who authored the brief, joins Jessica Denson to explain why the standard is crystal clear for Cannon to be removed from the case on remand. Read CREW's brief in full here: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/25-1-2024-09-03-Attachment-1.pdf Support Jessica Denson's legal fund here: http://thejessicadenson.com/donate Subscribe to Jessica's Youtube: https://youtube.com/@JessicaDenson07 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jack Smith BEGS to Reinstate Classified Docs CaseIllegitimate "prosecutor" Jack Smith is now pleading with the Eleventh Circuit to reinstate Trump's dismissed classified documents case.Fani Willis STRUGGLING in Trump's Disqualification AppealFani Willis must now respond after Trump's defense team submitted their appellate brief demanding the Fulton County DA's disqualification.

This Day in Legal History: Alabama Ten Commandments MonumentOn August 28, 2003, the Supreme Court of Alabama took down a monument of the Ten Commandments from its courthouse rotunda, marking the culmination of a high-profile legal battle. The monument had been installed by Chief Justice Roy Moore in 2001, who argued that it reflected the moral foundation of U.S. law. However, this act sparked a federal lawsuit, Glassroth v. Moore, in which three Alabama attorneys claimed the monument violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government endorsement of religion.The federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama agreed with the plaintiffs, ordering Moore to remove the monument. Moore refused, maintaining that he had a duty to acknowledge God in his official capacity. The case was subsequently appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which upheld the lower court's ruling. When Moore continued to defy the court orders, the Supreme Court of Alabama intervened, removing him from his position as Chief Justice. This case became a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the separation of church and state in the United States.It is worth noting that Roy Moore, the then-Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who so vociferously argued for the inclusion of the Ten Commandment monument is the selfsame Roy Moore that, during his 2017 U.S. Senate campaign, saw nine women accuse him of inappropriate conduct. Three of the women claimed they were assaulted by Moore when they were aged 14, 16, and 28. The other six women described Moore pursuing relationships with them when they were as young as 16. Independent witnesses corroborated that Moore had a reputation for approaching teenage girls at a local mall. Moore's responses to the allegations were inconsistent, initially recognizing some accusers but later denying knowledge of any of them. Thomas V. Girardi, a prominent figure in toxic tort litigation, was convicted on four counts of wire fraud in Los Angeles federal court. Once renowned for his work on the Erin Brockovich case and his appearances on "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," the disbarred attorney faced accusations of defrauding vulnerable clients. The jury reached a unanimous verdict after just four hours of deliberation, rejecting Girardi's defense that his cognitive decline prevented him from forming intent to commit fraud.Prosecutors argued that Girardi knowingly deceived clients, fabricating excuses to explain the missing funds, which he had already spent. The trial centered on the suffering of clients who were betrayed by Girardi in their darkest moments, leading to their financial and emotional devastation. Girardi could face up to 80 years in prison at his sentencing in December. His former CFO, Christopher Kamon, will also stand trial for related charges. The case highlights Girardi's history of evading disciplinary action despite numerous complaints and reveals potential future charges against other senior lawyers at his firm.Thomas Girardi Found Guilty by Jury of Defrauding Clients (2)A recent decision by a German privacy regulator has sparked intense debate about how personal data is handled by AI models like large language models (LLMs). The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection concluded that LLMs, despite generating personal data, do not store such information in a way that makes it identifiable, challenging the notion that AI systems can retain personal data. This stance contradicts findings by technologists who argue that LLMs can memorize and reproduce specific data, including personal details. The German position could limit individuals' ability to control their data in AI systems, potentially leading to significant differences in how the U.S. and the EU regulate AI. While California is pushing for laws that explicitly protect personal data in AI, the German approach may set a precedent for a more lenient interpretation under the GDPR. This divergence highlights the complexity of applying traditional privacy laws to AI technologies, with ongoing discussions about how to reconcile these differing perspectives.By way of brief background, LLMs do not directly memorize the training material they are exposed to. Instead, they analyze vast amounts of text data and learn patterns, correlations, and structures within the language, which are then used to generate responses. This learning process involves creating a complex mathematical representation of language—a model—rather than storing specific pieces of text verbatim. However, because these models are trained on enormous datasets, they might sometimes generate outputs that resemble specific phrases or data points encountered during training, especially if those phrases are common or particularly distinctive. This can occasionally lead to the unintentional reproduction of personal or sensitive information from the training data, even though the model itself does not store or recall such information in a traditional, deliberate sense.Of course, that would all be of slim comfort to someone who sees an AI chatbot spit out their home address and social security number in response to a prompt. Personal Info in AI Models Threatens Split in US, EU ApproachSpecial Counsel Jack Smith is moving forward with prosecuting Donald Trump for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election, despite a recent setback from the Supreme Court. The court found that Trump might have partial immunity from prosecution for actions taken as president, leading Smith to file a revised indictment. This new version removes claims related to Trump's communications with government officials, including efforts to involve the Justice Department, but retains the core charges accusing Trump of conspiring to reverse his election loss. The case comes as Trump campaigns for the 2024 election, adding tension to the legal proceedings. Trump criticized the indictment on social media, calling for its dismissal. The updated indictment also cuts references to former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as a co-conspirator and modifies Trump's description, downplaying his role as president at the time. The case now focuses more on Trump's role as a candidate rather than his presidential actions. As the case progresses, Trump faces other legal challenges, including cases involving classified documents and charges in Georgia related to the 2020 election.Trump Special Counsel Presses Ahead With 2020 Election Case (3)A U.S. appeals court has revived a lawsuit against TikTok by the mother of a 10-year-old girl who died after attempting a dangerous "blackout challenge" promoted on the platform. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that TikTok is not shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which typically protects internet companies from liability for user-generated content. The court found that Section 230 does not apply when TikTok's algorithm actively recommends harmful content, viewing such recommendations as the company's own speech. This decision marks a shift from previous interpretations of Section 230, which had generally protected platforms from liability for failing to prevent the spread of harmful content. The ruling overturns a lower court's dismissal of the case, allowing the mother, Tawainna Anderson, to pursue claims against TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, following her daughter Nylah's death in 2021. The case could have significant implications for how tech companies are held accountable for the content their algorithms promote.TikTok must face lawsuit over 10-year-old girl's death, US court rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The stolen documents case is back! Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump and his goons in July on the theory that special counsels are illegal, and Monday Special Counsel Jack Smith filed his brief to the Eleventh Circuit explaining why she is very obviously wrong. Plus, RFK Jr. dropped out and endorsed Trump. Does that mean he's off the ballot everywhere? Links: Jack Smith 11th Cir Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.18.0_1.pdf   Trump v. US https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf 18 USC 599 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/599 ADLF Complaint re: Trump/Carson https://static.politico.com/83/4d/90f795464ab58210ca25aa3a1af7/adlf-complaint.pdf NRS 293.202 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-293.html New Yorker profile https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/08/12/robert-f-kennedy-jr-profile-presidential-campaign Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod

This Day in Legal History: Sacco and Vanzetti are Executed On August 23, 1927, Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were executed in the Massachusetts State Prison, marking the culmination of one of the most controversial trials in American history. The two men, both anarchists, had been convicted of a 1920 armed robbery and double murder in South Braintree, Massachusetts. However, their trial was widely criticized for being tainted by anti-immigrant and anti-radical sentiments, with many believing they were targeted more for their political beliefs than any clear evidence of guilt. Protests and demonstrations erupted around the world, calling for their release or a new trial.Despite the global outcry, the U.S. judicial system upheld their conviction, and they were sentenced to death. Sacco and Vanzetti's execution sparked widespread condemnation and became a symbol of the miscarriage of justice. Decades later, in 1977, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis issued a proclamation officially exonerating Sacco and Vanzetti, acknowledging the unfairness of their trial and the lasting impact it had on civil liberties in the United States. Their case remains a powerful reminder of the dangers of prejudice and the importance of due process in the legal system.OpenAI has hired Idriss Kechida as its first global data protection officer, reflecting the company's growing focus on privacy amid its rapid expansion in generative AI. Kechida, previously the associate general counsel and chief privacy officer at Match Group, will oversee OpenAI's compliance with global privacy laws and collaborate closely with the company's privacy legal team, led by Emma Redmond. Kechida was drawn to OpenAI by the unique privacy challenges posed by AI technology. His role is part of a broader hiring spree at OpenAI, which has brought on more than a dozen lawyers recently, including high-profile recruits from companies like Google and Netflix, to address the increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny the company faces. This expanded legal team will tackle issues ranging from trust and safety protocols to lawsuits challenging OpenAI's business practices.OpenAI Swipes Match's Privacy Chief for New Data Protection RoleThe Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the Biden administration's rule extending Title IX protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation in schools receiving federal funding. This ruling reverses a previous decision by an Alabama judge that allowed the rule to take effect. The rule, adopted in April, faced opposition from over half of U.S. states, leading to multiple lawsuits. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina successfully appealed to the Eleventh Circuit after an initial failure to secure an injunction from the lower court. The appeals court argued that the rule significantly broadened the scope of Title IX beyond its original intent, potentially exceeding the Education Department's authority. The court cited the Supreme Court's definition of discrimination in *Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education*, which requires harassment to be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive to qualify under Title IX. Judge Charles R. Wilson dissented, supporting the lower court's decision.Title IX Gender Identity Protections Blocked by Eleventh CircuitThe U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has partially revived an Arizona law that requires proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. The ruling reinstates the provision that mandates documented proof for those using the state voter registration form, but leaves in place a lower court's block on similar requirements for the federal registration form. This decision comes after Arizona Republicans and the Republican National Committee requested the revival, following a federal judge's earlier block of the law due to challenges from the Biden administration and advocacy groups. The Supreme Court's ruling underscores ongoing debates over voting rights, especially in battleground states like Arizona.US Supreme Court partly revives Arizona's proof of citizenship voter law | ReutersIn my piece for Forbes on IRS data access and accountability, I highlight the challenges faced by the IRS in securing sensitive taxpayer information, given the vast number of employees and contractors with access. Traditional methods like rigorous vetting and background checks are not sufficient, as insider threats often come from those without prior misconduct. Instead of focusing solely on prevention through vetting, I argue that the IRS should prioritize making all data access traceable and creating formal, transparent avenues for reporting concerns.I propose that the IRS enhance its monitoring capabilities by using artificial intelligence to log and analyze every instance of data access. This would deter unauthorized access and help quickly identify the source of any breaches. Additionally, I suggest establishing an "Office of Public Integrity," a formal mechanism for employees and contractors to disclose information they believe is in the public interest. This office would provide a controlled, internal process for such disclosures, balancing transparency with the need to protect sensitive data. By implementing these measures, the IRS can improve data security and public trust.Bringing Leakers Into The Fold—IRS Data Access And AccountabilityThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.Ludwig van Beethoven, one of the most revered composers in classical music history, was born in 1770 in Bonn, Germany. His music bridged the Classical and Romantic eras, pushing the boundaries of composition and expression. Among his vast body of work, the Piano Sonata No. 16 in G Major, Op. 31, No. 1, composed in 1802, stands out as a prime example of his innovative style. This piece is part of a set of three sonatas (Op. 31) that Beethoven composed during a period of personal and artistic transformation. The first movement, Allegro vivace, is marked by its lively and playful character, reflecting Beethoven's desire to break away from the traditional sonata form and experiment with new ideas. The sonata was premiered on August 25th, 1802, offering audiences a glimpse into Beethoven's evolving musical vision. As this week's closing theme, the Allegro vivace offers a vibrant and energetic conclusion, embodying the spirit of Beethoven's creativity and the boldness that made him a giant in the world of music.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 16 in G Major, Op. 31, No. 1, enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Here's a trivia question for devotees of Original Jurisdiction: excluding Supreme Court justices and Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been most frequently recognized in these pages as Judge of the Week? It's a tie between a pair of four-time honorees: Judge James Ho (5th Cir.), whom I've previously interviewed, and Judge Kevin Newsom (11th Cir.)—my latest guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast.This month marks the seventh anniversary of Judge Newsom's appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. And although seven years is not a long time by the standards of judicial service, Judge Newsom has already developed a national reputation as one of the sharpest thinkers and writers on the federal bench.How has he put himself on the map? Many of history's most celebrated jurists have done so through dazzling dissents, such as Justice John Marshall Harlan, often called “The Great Dissenter,” and Justice Antonin Scalia.But Judge Newsom has done so through a more unusual vehicle: the concurrence (including the occasional self-concurrence, i.e., a concurrence to his own majority opinion). In a series of thoughtful and scholarly concurrences, he has tackled some of the messiest doctrinal areas and knottiest problems in American law, including standing, nondelegation, complex First and Second Amendment issues, the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, and jurisdiction under Bell v. Hood.Judge Newsom and I discuss why he writes these concurrences—plus Justice Elena Kagan's critique of superfluous concurrences, how to hire great law clerks (and feed them to the Supreme Court), and the potential utility of AI for originalism—in the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Judge Kevin C. Newsom bio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit* Remarks of Judge Kevin C. Newsom, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy* Interview of Judge Kevin Newsom, by David Oscar Markus for For the DefensePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

In this episode, we dive into a challenging Missouri Supreme Court decision affecting the PFR community, revisit last week’s discussion on banishment, and update you on a key case in Alabama argued before the Eleventh Circuit. Chance returns with news from California on progress in parole and treatment, and we also discuss a recent press […]

Exciting news for those in the PSO world! The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion (In re Baycare Medical Group, 101 F.4th 1287 (11th Cir. 2024)) on May 14, 2024 that expands the scope of information, known as “Patient Safety Work Product,” protected by the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (“PSQIA”). The Court rejects the “sole purpose” test articulated by other courts and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), finding that the test and HHS's guidance “contradicts” the PSQIA's final regulations. The “sole purpose” test was extremely limiting in what providers could categorize as Patient Safety Work Product because the information had to be generated solely for reporting to a PSO.  Now, with the Eleventh Circuit's rejection of the test, it allows additional types of information to qualify as Patient Safety Work Product.  Join Horty, Springer and Mattern partners Dan Mulholland and Charlie Chulack for a discussion of the PSQIA, the “sole purpose” test, the In re Baycare Medical Group case, and how the opinion will affect PSOs, and providers that contract with PSOs, during the podcast “Patient Safety Organizations – New Court Case Provides New Opportunities.”

On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas's immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On July 1, the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 ruling in NetChoice v. Moody, a case on Florida and Texas's social media laws aimed at preventing companies like Facebook and YouTube from discriminating against users based on their political beliefs. The court essentially kicked the cases back down to lower courts, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, because they hadn't fully explored the First Amendment implications of the laws, including how they might affect direct messages or services like Venmo and Uber. While both sides declared victory, the laws are currently enjoined until the lower court complete their remand, and a majority of justices in their opinions seemed skeptical that regulating the news feeds and content algorithms of social media companies wouldn't violate the firms' First Amendment rights. Other justices like Samuel Alito argued the ruling is narrow and left the door open for states to try and regulate content moderation.So how will the lower courts proceed? Will any parts of the Florida and Texas laws stand? What will it mean for the future of social media regulation? And could the ruling have spillover effects into other areas of tech regulation, such as efforts to restrict social media for children or impose privacy regulations? Evan and Luke are joined by Daphne Keller, Platform Regulation Director at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center. Previously, she was Associate General Counsel at Google where she led work on web search and other products. You can read her Wall Street Journal op-ed on the case here and her Lawfare piece here.

On this payday, Amber and Erika are examining America's third branch of government, the judiciary, and its often overlooked role in upholding the unjust systems at the base of this country. We examine three recent rulings - the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine and expand presidential immunity and the Eleventh Circuit's ruling dismantling the Fearless Fund - that reveal how judges can wield their power to promote inequitable political agendas. Next, we discuss how nefarious politicians co-opted the playbook of the Civil Rights Movement to dismantle judicial equal protection and racial remediation. Tune in to learn why we all need to pay more attention to the judicial branch!

Two cases involving NetChoice, a company that represents social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok, were heard and decided by the Supreme Court this term. Both cases concern issues of free speech and social media platforms.In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenged Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenged the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Florida, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, creating a Circuit split. In light of that split the Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral argument in both cases on February 26, 2024. On July 1, 2024, a 9-0 court released its decision vacating both judgments based on a lack of "proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges" and remanding them for reconsideration.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.Featuring:Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst

Judge Andrew Brasher joins David Oscar Markus to discuss all things Eleventh Circuit.Judge Brasher joined the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals when he was 39 years old. Having clerked for Judge William Pryor and worked as the Alabama Solicitor General, he is part of the well-known Judge Pryor “judging tree,” along with Judge Kevin Newsom and others. He discusses how he navigates being on the same court with his mentor and former boss, his philosophy on legal writing, and how he hires his law clerks. We also discuss some of his recent criminal law opinions.

The Fearless Fund ran the “Strivers Grant Contest,” which awards $20,000 and other benefits “only to black females.” Last year, the American Alliance for Equal Rights sued Fearless, claiming its racially discriminatory contest violated 42 U.S.C. §1981, which prohibits private parties from discriminating on the basis of race when making or enforcing contracts. Fearless raised several arguments in reply—claiming, for instance, that the Alliance didn’t have standing and that the contest was a valid “affirmative action” program—but it also raised a First Amendment defense. According to Fearless, its discriminatory contest was really an act of “expressive association.” Although the Supreme Court rejected that argument when segregationists made it, Runyon v. McCrary (1976), Fearless won on it in the district court in Georgia. The Alliance sought an injunction pending appeal, which a split panel of the Eleventh Circuit granted. The court concluded that the Alliance had “clearly shown the existence of a contractual regime,” which brought the case “within the realm of §1981.” The Court then rejected Fearless’ First Amendment argument, emphasizing that the Constitution “does not give [Fearless] the right to exclude persons from a contractual regime based on their race.” On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court, with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Fearless Fund, holding that (1) the Alliance has standing and (2) that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate because Fearless’s contest is substantially likely to violate § 1981, is substantially unlikely to enjoy First Amendment protection, and inflicts irreparable injury. Joining us to discuss this litigation and ruling is the Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, who filed an amicus brief alongside the American Civil Rights Project and Buckeye Institute in support of the Alliance. Featuring: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

First Amendment: Does Florida's "Stop Woke Act" encroach upon academic freedom in a way that violates the First Amendment? - Argued: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:18:13 EDT

LeRoy Pernell, et al. v. Brian Lamb, et al. (consolidated with Adriana Novoa, et al. v. Commissioner of the Florida State Board of Education, et al.), argued before Judges Charles R. Wilson, Britt C. Grant, and Barbara Lagoa in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 14, 2024. Argued by Charles Cooper (on behalf of Brian Lamb, et al.) and Leah Watson (on behalf of Appellees LeRoy Pernell, et al.) and Greg Greubel (on behalf of Appellees Adriana Novoa, et al.). Issues Presented, from the Brief of Defendants-Appellants: (1) Whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to each provision of Florida's Individual Freedom Act that regulates public universities; (2) Whether the Act's regulation of in-class instruction by public employees triggers First Amendment scrutiny; (3) Whether the Act is sufficiently tailored to advance the State's compelling interest in preventing invidious discrimination by public employees at public universities; (4) Whether the challenged provisions of the Act are unconstitutionally vague; (5) Whether any unconstitutional provisions are severable from the remainder of the Act; and (6) Whether equitable factors favor reversal of the district court's preliminary injunction. Resources: CourtListener case docket for LeRoy Pernell v. Commissioner of the FL State Board of Education (pre-consolidation name of one of the constituent cases) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Suppose we don’t like how our governmental powers are separated. Perhaps we think the executive branch has too much power. Or perhaps we think that it is doing more than the original meaning of “the executive power” would suggest, but we think that is a good thing. What are the legitimate methods of constitutional change in our republic? Must we amend the Constitution? How should an originalist approach these questions?Featuring:Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Civil Procedure: May a magistrate preside over the end of a civil trial if the presiding district judge is unavailable? - Argued: Thu, 16 May 2024 9:28:45 EDT

The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in MacQuarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al., decided April 12, 2024. The Court is asked whether the Second Circuit erred in holding-in conflict with the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits- that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 can support a private claim under Section l0(b), even in the absence of an otherwise- misleading statement. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

Two cases involving NetChoice, a company that represents social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok will be heard at the Supreme Court this term. Both cases concern issues of free speech and social media platforms.In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenges Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. The lower district court found that the law did not stand up to strict scrutiny. Additionally, the court found that this law didn’t serve a legitimate state interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this ruling.In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenges the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. The lower district court found the sections unconstitutional and placed an injunction on the two sections. The Fifth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that HB 20 doesn’t regulate the speech of the platforms, but instead protects the speech of users and regulates the platform's conduct.Both cases are set to be heard at the Supreme Court on February 26, 2024. Join us as we break down and analyze how Oral argument went the same day.Featuring:Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst

NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in American Securities Association v. Securities and Exchange Commission, urging the Eleventh Circuit to set aside an SEC order requiring financial industry broker-dealers to fund a “Consolidated Audit Trail” (CAT) that Congress never authorized. Unless the Court intervenes to stop it, these costs will be passed on to the investing American public as an unlegislated tax. Mark is joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris to discuss NCLA's amicus brief in American Securities Association v. Securities v. SEC.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: National Banking Act On this day in legal history, February 26 marks a significant national moment with President Abraham Lincoln's signing of the National Banking Act into law in 1863. This significant legislation established the framework for the American banking charter system, introducing a standardized currency and founding the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) within the Treasury Department. Aimed at consolidating the nation's financial resources to support the Union's efforts during the Civil War, the Act encouraged banks to invest in federal rather than state bonds. Despite its noble intentions to unify the banking system and raise funds for the war, the Act fell short of its financial goals, leading to its refinement and eventual replacement by the National Banking Act of 1864. This initial attempt at banking reform, however, laid the groundwork for the modern American financial infrastructure and represents a foundational moment in U.S. legal and financial history.The Supreme Court's deliberation on the copyright damages case, Warner Chappell Music Inc. v. Nealy, brings into focus the application of the "discovery rule" in copyright law, a principle allowing for the pause of a statute of limitations when a violation cannot be timely discovered. This principle was scrutinized during the oral arguments on February 21, with the court reevaluating its presence in copyright legislation amid Justice Antonin Scalia's historical skepticism, likening it to "bad wine of a recent vintage." The justices, particularly Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, hinted at the possibility of deferring the decision pending the resolution of another related case, Hearst Newspapers LLC v. Martinelli, to first determine the fundamental applicability of the discovery rule to copyright law.Despite the circuit courts' unanimous agreement on some form of the copyright discovery rule, its application remains inconsistent and unclear, fueling ongoing debate among copyright lawyers. The Supreme Court's current review could redefine the rule's existence and application, influenced by a contemporary inclination towards a more textual interpretation of laws and less reliance on circuit court consensus.The controversy stems from Nealy's lawsuit against Warner, alleging unauthorized use of his music rights acquired in 2008, which he discovered only in 2016 due to personal circumstances. The Eleventh Circuit's stance, recognizing the discovery rule, allowed for a broader scope of damages, challenging Warner's appeal and the Supreme Court's previous rulings that rejected other discovery rules.The timing of the court's consideration of Warner's case, juxtaposed with the pending Hearst petition, raises speculation about the justices' strategic approach to resolving the underlying legal question of the discovery rule's relevance to copyright law. The Supreme Court's decision could potentially consolidate or hold off on Warner's case in anticipation of addressing the broader issue in Martinelli, indicating a strategic pause to ensure a comprehensive examination of the discovery rule's place in copyright jurisprudence.This case highlights a pivotal moment in copyright law, where the Supreme Court's verdict could either affirm the circuit courts' stance on the discovery rule or upend prevailing interpretations, significantly impacting copyright plaintiffs' ability to claim damages for late-discovered infringements. The outcome could redefine legal strategies and principles surrounding copyright claims, emphasizing the court's evolving stance on statutory interpretation and legal precedence.Copyright Damages Case Turns on High Court's Taste for DiscoveryThe Supreme Court is poised to examine two significant cases that originate from Florida and Texas, both challenging state laws designed to regulate social media companies and their content moderation practices. These laws, advocated by Republicans as measures against the perceived censorship of conservative viewpoints by tech giants, have stirred a broad coalition of opponents from across the political spectrum. Advocacy groups, ranging from the libertarian Goldwater Institute to the progressive Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, alongside national security officials from various administrations, have submitted amicus briefs. These briefs collectively caution against these laws, arguing they threaten free speech and could hinder efforts to manage harmful content online.The contested laws prohibit major social media platforms from censoring content based on viewpoints, demanding transparency in content moderation processes. However, appellate courts have delivered divergent opinions on their legality, highlighting a deep rift over how these regulations intersect with the First Amendment and the rights of private companies versus the public interest.The US Supreme Court's intervention in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton seeks to address this legal discord, with implications far beyond the ideological battle lines initially drawn. Proponents of striking down or cautiously reviewing the laws argue they could restrict the ability of social media firms to curb hate speech and harassment, disproportionately affecting minorities and potentially compromising public safety through the unchecked spread of dangerous content.The wide array of organizations opposing the laws underscores the complexity of balancing free speech rights with the need for responsible content moderation on digital platforms. Despite their political origins, the cases challenge the Court to make a nuanced judgment that transcends partisan divisions, focusing instead on the broader implications for individual rights and societal welfare.Top Court Social Media Cases Unite Odd Bedfellows on Free SpeechUS Supreme Court to weigh Florida, Texas laws constraining social media companies | ReutersIn response to a sluggish initial public offering (IPO) market, companies are increasingly leveraging cornerstone investors to mitigate the risks associated with going public. These investors commit to purchasing shares early on, often at a more favorable value, and are highlighted in the IPO prospectus, providing a level of confidence and stability to the offering. Notably, cornerstone investors played a significant role in nearly all large IPOs in 2023, a trend expected to continue as the market regains momentum. Despite a significant drop in IPO activity last year, with the total value of IPOs hitting a decade low, lawyers remain optimistic about a revival in offerings across various sectors, including consumer retail, tax, energy, and infrastructure by 2025.Reddit Inc.'s recent filing for an IPO and successful listings by BrightSpring Health Services Inc. and CG Oncology Inc. signal a potential uptick in market activity. Legal practices are poised to benefit from an increase in IPO-related work, especially after relying on litigation and bankruptcy practices to sustain demand amid last year's downturn. Cornerstone investing, gaining prominence since regulatory changes in 2019, has become a strategic tool for de-risking IPOs in a challenging market environment.Companies like Arm Holdings Plc have successfully utilized cornerstone investments to attract significant attention to their IPOs, securing major clients like Apple Inc., Nvidia Corp., and Alphabet Inc. as investors. While the broader market conditions remain challenging, with many companies postponing public offerings due to low valuations and high borrowing costs, the strategic use of cornerstone investors offers a pathway to liquidity and public market entry, particularly for firms in the biotech, health, and energy sectors that require substantial capital for growth and development.IPO Lawyers See Cornerstone Investors Boost Deals in Slow MarketHenry Barbour, a Mississippi committeeman for the Republican National Committee (RNC), has proposed resolutions aimed at halting the party's financial support for Donald Trump's legal battles as he faces numerous criminal trials and civil case judgments. These resolutions also seek to enforce the RNC's neutrality in the presidential race until a candidate secures the necessary delegates for the nomination. Barbour's initiative reflects a desire to redirect the party's focus towards winning elections rather than financing legal fees for its leading candidate, emphasizing that Trump should independently manage his legal challenges.To advance these resolutions to a vote among the RNC's 168 committee members, Barbour must secure two cosponsors from at least 10 states by a specified deadline. Despite predicting their likely defeat if brought to a vote, this move underscores a broader debate within the party regarding its support for Trump, who remains a dominant figure seeking to consolidate his influence, evidenced by his campaign's significant legal expenses and his efforts to position allies, including Lara Trump, in key RNC roles.The discussion around the RNC's financial involvement in Trump's legal issues comes as the former president continues to assert his innocence amidst accumulating legal and financial pressures. This internal party challenge coincides with Trump's campaign to reinforce his status as the Republican presidential nominee against potential contenders like Nikki Haley, highlighting the intricate balance between party loyalty, legal entanglements, and the broader electoral strategy against Democrats.Republican seeks to bar party from paying Trump's legal bills | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Immigration: May Florida sue the Biden administration for releasing rather than detaining many people who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexican border? - Argued: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:37:46 EDT

In 1986, Scott received his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Florida. In 1990, he received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where he had been a member of both the Moot Court and served as Vice Chancellor of the Student Honor Court. His legal career began in 1990 at a leading Tampa defense firm as an associate, where he defended all types of individuals and corporations accused of causing personal injuries, including doctors, jail medical providers, hospitals, and nursing homes. In 1998, he became a shareholder of the firm, and remained there until 2000, when he decided to help injured people. From January of 2000 until February of 2006, Scott helped start a distinguished plaintiff's personal injury law firm in Tampa, where he practiced before starting Distasio Law Firm. Today, Scott is a Tampa personal injury lawyer who is licensed to practice law in both Florida and Pennsylvania. He is admitted to the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Florida, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. He's also admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. #LeducEntertainment #SpaghettiontheWall #podcast #TheSocialMarketingKing #LegalInsights #PodcastGuest #JusticePrevails

The Armed Career Criminal Act provides that felons who possess a firearm are normally subject to a maximum 10-year sentence. But if the felon already has at least three "serious drug offense" convictions, then the minimum sentence is fifteen years. Courts decide whether a prior state conviction counts as a serious drug offense using the categorical approach. That requires determining whether the elements of a state drug offense are the same as, or narrower than those of its federal counterpart. If so, the state conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate. But federal drug law often changes-as here, where Congress decriminalized hemp, narrowing the federal definition of marijuana. If state law doesn't follow suit, sentencing courts face a categorical conundrum. Under an earlier version of federal law, the state and federal offenses match-and the state offense is an ACCA predicate. Under the amended version, the offenses do not match-and the state offense is not an ACCA predicate. So the version of federal law that the court chooses to consult dictates the difference between serving a 10-year maximum or a 15-year minimum. The question presented is: Which version of federal law should a sentencing court consult under ACCA's categorical approach? The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates fifteen years in prison for federal firearm offenses where the defendant has three prior "violent felonies" or "serious drug offenses." The ACCA defines a "serious drug offense" as "an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed by law." 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). Four circuits have unanimously held that § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) incorporates the federal drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense to which the ACCA applies. In the decision below, however, the Eleventh Circuit accepted the government's express invitation to reject those circuit decisions. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit held that § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) instead incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the defendant's prior state drug offense. The question presented is: Whether the "serious drug offense" definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense (as the Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held), or the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the prior state drug offense (as the Eleventh Circuit held below).1 1 A related question is presented in Altman, et al. v. United States (No. 22-5877) (response requested Nov. 16, 2022) and Brown v. United States (No. 22-6389) (docketed Dec. 23, 2022).

Matt is a local attorney that practices real estate law. He has been on top of a law that recently opened non-residential properties up for residential development. The law came out of Tallahassee and is being dictated to the local municipalities. This could be a great opportunity for people looking to build to rent.   Key Discussion Points [01:11] Introduction by Eric & Steven [11:15] About our guest: Matt Newton [12:43] Give us your background and why you got into real estate law [19:27] The Live Local Act: Trying to make housing more affordable [20:48] Explain the Live Local Act and how it helps create affordable housing [28:15] Under the Live Local Act, is it true that for workforce house, you can you bend the zoning rules? [34:11] Talk abou the timeline for Live Local - is it on the books right now? [38:14] How would you guide an investor who feels they have a parcel they could use Live Local for? [45:37] How can folks reach you? [50:58] Closing comments by Eric & Steven     About Our Guest     Matt Newton is one of very few private-sector attorneys board certified in City, County, and Local Government Law in the Tampa Bay area. Matt received his J.D., cum laude, from Stetson University College of Law in 2014 and has dedicated most of his career to assisting clients with matters in the areas of local regulation of land through planning and zoning, sovereign immunity, state-local preemption, open government, and the defense of both property and civil rights.   Matt writes about legal, political, and urban planning issues in a weekly column for Tampa's La Gaceta Newspaper entitled “The Reasonable Standard.” Super Lawyers® has recognized Matt as one of Florida's Rising Stars® in 2022, and Best Lawyers® has named him as One to Watch® annually from 2021-2023.   Matt is licensed to practice law in both Illinois and Florida. He is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In addition to his Board Certification, Florida's Supreme Court has certified Matt as a mediator for civil cases pending in Florida's circuit and appellate courts.   A dedicated member of the community, Matt Chairs Community Tampa Bay's Board of Directors, is a member of Midtown Tampa's Kiwanis Club, and is a regular volunteer for Tampa's Stageworks Theatre.     GUEST CONTACT INFO Email: MattNewton@olderlundylaw Website: OlderLundyLaw.com Google Search: Matt Newton in Tampa  

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the "speedy trial" test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

American Bar Association Links!Immigrant Justice Project (IJP) galaYoung Lawyer's Rising PodcastImmigration Lawyers Toolbox Marriage and Fiancé Visas + I-751 course Click me!Kemokai v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 21-12743 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2023)aggravated felony theft offense; § 101(a)(43)(G); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 17; Santos-Zacaria; exhaustion requirement in the Eleventh Circuit; B-Z-R-; mental health; particularly serious crime Nerio Perez v. Garland, No. 22-2434 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2023)unable or unwilling to protect; protective order; Mayan ancestry; women; GuatemalaSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

The question of whether the Fulton County trial of Donald Trump and his co-defendants will be removed to federal court is now before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and it's on its way to the Supreme Court. Judge Steve Jones of the District Court in the Northern District of Georgia denied Mark Meadows' motion for removal. He has now also denied an emergency stay of that ruling, and so the question goes to the appeals court in the federal system, even as the underlying criminal case percolates along in Fulton County court in Georgia.To discuss it all, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower, Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein, and Lee Kovarsky of the University of Texas Law School, who recently wrote a piece on the subject for Lawfare. They talked about the right standard for removal and whether Meadows should be yanked out of Fulton County court, what the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court are likely to do with it, how long they are going to take, and whether the federal litigation will screw up the timing of the Fulton County prosecution.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.