Podcast appearances and mentions of jeffrey fisher

This Day in Legal History: Wilder Elected First Black GovernorOn January 13, 1990, Lawrence Douglas Wilder made history by becoming the first African American elected governor of a U.S. state, taking office as the 66th governor of Virginia. Sworn in by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Wilder's inauguration symbolized a milestone in American political and civil rights history. His election represented the culmination of decades of progress in dismantling racial barriers, particularly poignant in Virginia, a state with a complex history as the capital of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Wilder, a Democrat, had previously served as the lieutenant governor of Virginia from 1986 to 1990, and earlier in the Virginia State Senate, where he was known for his advocacy for civil rights, education, and criminal justice reform. His gubernatorial campaign focused on pragmatic leadership, fiscal responsibility, and bridging divides in a state still grappling with its historical legacies of segregation and inequality. Wilder's narrow victory highlighted the increasing political influence of African Americans in the U.S. and underscored the potential for diverse representation at the highest levels of government.During his tenure, Wilder prioritized issues such as improving public education, reducing the state budget deficit, and enacting stricter gun control measures. Following his time as governor, he continued to serve the public as the mayor of Richmond from 2005 to 2009, further solidifying his legacy as a trailblazer and dedicated public servant. Wilder's career remains a testament to the possibilities of progress and a reflection of the changing political and social landscape of the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case involving a law that requires TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell the platform or face a U.S. ban, with a compliance deadline of January 19, 2025. TikTok's lawyer, Noel Francisco, warned that endorsing such a law could set a precedent allowing Congress to target other companies on similar grounds, potentially infringing on First Amendment protections. Francisco cited examples like AMC Theaters, which was once owned by a Chinese company, to illustrate the broader implications. The law was passed with bipartisan support due to concerns over national security, with lawmakers fearing the Chinese government could use TikTok to spy on Americans or spread propaganda. TikTok content creators, represented by lawyer Jeffrey Fisher, argued the law unfairly singles out TikTok while ignoring other Chinese-owned platforms like Temu, which also collect U.S. user data. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, defended the law, stating it is essential to push ByteDance toward divestiture to mitigate risks from foreign adversaries. If implemented, the ban would prevent new downloads of TikTok, leading to the app's eventual obsolescence. The justices appeared divided, balancing national security concerns with constitutional protections of free speech. Former President Donald Trump has urged the court to delay the deadline until his administration, beginning January 20, could pursue a political resolution.TikTok warns of broad consequences if Supreme Court allows ban | ReutersU.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who prosecuted federal cases against Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents, has resigned from the Department of Justice. His resignation, effective January 10, 2025, follows Trump's victory in the 2024 election, which made the continuation of these cases against the president-elect untenable due to DOJ rules prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president. Smith's cases were already hindered by legal setbacks, including rulings granting Trump broad immunity for actions taken as president.Smith submitted his final confidential report on January 7 and defended the merits of his prosecutions while requesting dismissal of the charges. His work led to historic firsts, as Trump became the first former U.S. president federally indicted, accused of retaining classified national security documents and attempting to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election. Both cases, however, faced legal delays, with one dismissed by a Trump-appointed judge and the other paused due to Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity.Trump criticized Smith's investigations as politically motivated and pledged to dismiss him upon taking office. Smith's tenure included significant legal challenges, culminating in the decision to halt prosecutions against Trump while continuing efforts against associates involved in obstruction. Other legal cases, such as the Georgia election interference case, remain stalled or unresolved. Smith's resignation marks the end of his role in a polarizing chapter of U.S. legal and political history.Trump prosecutor Jack Smith resigns from Justice Department | ReutersApple is defending itself against a £1.5 billion ($1.8 billion) class-action lawsuit in the UK, which alleges the company abused its dominance by charging a 30% commission on App Store transactions, unfairly inflating costs for approximately 20 million iPhone and iPad users. The lawsuit, led by British academic Rachael Kent, claims Apple maintains a monopoly over app distribution and imposes restrictive terms that harm developers and consumers alike. Apple argues the case lacks merit, emphasizing that most developers pay no commission and highlighting the benefits of its iOS ecosystem, which prioritizes security and innovation. The company further defends its practices as a legitimate use of its intellectual property, dismissing allegations as an attempt to undermine its rights.This is the first large-scale lawsuit against a tech giant to go to trial under the UK's new class-action regime, with additional cases targeting Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon expected to follow. A similar $1.1 billion case against Google over Play Store fees is set for later in 2025. The trial will last seven weeks, with Apple's CFO, Kevan Parekh, scheduled to provide testimony.Apple fights $1.8 billion App Store lawsuit in first of UK class actions against tech giants | ReutersThe Biden administration's negotiation of Medicare drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act revealed the strategic approaches taken by both the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and pharmaceutical companies. These closed-door negotiations included legal, commercial, and policy experts on both sides, reflecting the complexity of determining prices for some of Medicare's most expensive drugs. The finalized cuts, announced in August 2024, ranged from 38% to 79%, aiming to generate billions in savings. However, skepticism remains over whether these savings will fully materialize due to offsetting factors.Pharmaceutical companies tailored their delegations to include experts in market access, global pricing, health economics, and portfolio strategy, reflecting their varied priorities. AstraZeneca, for example, sent contract operations specialists as part of its broader lawsuit challenging the program's implementation. Meanwhile, Novartis focused on market access for its heart failure drug, Entresto, expressing concerns about reduced patient access. Other companies, including Merck and AbbVie, redacted participant details, citing proprietary considerations.Legal teams were present at nearly every meeting, underscoring ongoing litigation over the program's constitutionality. Manufacturers have largely been unsuccessful in court, although some have won partial victories. Topics discussed during negotiations, such as clinical value and FDA approvals, offered insights into how both sides justified price cuts. The CMS plans to expand the program with additional drugs in its next negotiation round, which will occur under the incoming Trump administration. President-elect Trump has appointed Mehmet Oz to lead the CMS, signaling potential shifts in how the program is managed. Industry observers see these initial negotiations as a test case for broader reforms in U.S. drug pricing policy.Drug Industry Lawyers, Experts Helped Shape US Drug Price Cuts 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

Episode 22: TikTok Inc. V. Merrick Garland TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd.) and Jeffrey Fisher (on behalf of Creator Petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al.), and Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case: Adam Feldman's “The Universe of TikTok v. Garland in a Nutshell” contains an excellent synopsis of relevant facts and procedural history. Question Presented: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for TikTok v. Garland Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on D.C. Circuit version of TikTok v. Garland Brief for petitioners TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd. Brief for petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al. Brief for the respondent 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

The three mustaches discuss what could have caused a completely sober rich white frat boy to snap. Harrouff, 25, fatally stabbed John Stevens III, 59, and Michelle Mishcon, 53, in a vicious and random attack that included injuring their neighbor Jeffrey Fisher, who tried to help the couple. The Florida State University student, then 19, was found biting and chewing on Stevens' face in the man's driveway, and detectives recovered what appeared to be flesh from Harrouff's teeth.Try Our New 8% seltzers HardAFseltzer.comOur Sponsors:* Check out Mochi Health and use my code CRIMEJUICE for a great deal: www.google.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/crime-corner-with-jessie-wiseman/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Alice and Jeffrey Fisher join Rhapsody Radio to discuss the release of Jeffrey's memoir - “Never Give Up”. In 2011, Jeffrey suffered a severe stroke leaving him partially paralyzed and unable to speak. This life-changing event set him on a path marked by years of trials and triumphs that would challenge him to revisit fundamental life lessons he had held to be true for so long.

Jeffrey Fisher, the co-director of Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, has more than 40 Supreme Court arguments under his belt. He joins SCOTUStalk to discuss his non-traditional path to becoming a top oral advocate, and he breaks down key moments from two of his arguments during the 2020-21 term, when all arguments were over the telephone. This interview is part of SCOTUStalk's occasional “SCOTUS spotlight” series, which features in-depth interviews with Supreme Court litigators about how they approach oral arguments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A Supreme Court brain trust gathers for this year's Amicus Breakfast Table. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Melissa Murray, professor at NYU School of Law and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny; Jeffrey Fisher, Stanford Law School professor and co-director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation clinic; Perry Grossman, senior staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; and of course, Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern. Together, they analyze the shape of the court and the ramification of its decisions at the end of the 2020 term.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Supreme Court brain trust gathers for this year's Amicus Breakfast Table. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Melissa Murray, professor at NYU School of Law and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny; Jeffrey Fisher, Stanford Law School professor and co-director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation clinic; Perry Grossman, senior staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; and of course, Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern. Together, they analyze the shape of the court and the ramification of its decisions at the end of the 2020 term.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The open secret of Supreme Court advocacy in a digital era is that there is a new way to argue to the Justices. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Pam Karlan and Joe Bankman sit down with co-director of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Jeff Fisher, to discuss his recent article, Virtual Briefing. For past episodes, visit: https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-legal-on-siriusxm/

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman : "Arguing Before the Supreme Court with guest Jeffrey Fisher" Law professor and co-director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic Jeffrey Fisher, shares his extensive experience arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, including what it is like to prepare for and present a case. Originally aired on SiriusXM on December 23, 2017. Recorded at Stanford Video.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman : "Arguing Before the Supreme Court with guest Jeffrey Fisher" Law professor and co-director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic Jeffrey Fisher, shares his extensive experience arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, including what it is like to prepare for and present a case. Originally aired on SiriusXM on December 23, 2017. Recorded at Stanford Video.

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced an abrupt about-face on voting rights, essentially walking away from a lawsuit against a harsh voter-ID law in Texas. We discuss the reversal and its implications with Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She was one of the lawyers in the strange position of arguing the case in court this week, the day after the DOJ reversed course. We also sit down with Jeffrey Fisher, who argued an important immigration-related case at the Supreme Court his week. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions asks whether a legal immigrant can be deported for something that counts as a serious crime in some states, but not others. It also previews a question likely to play a big role in Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings: how much deference courts should give federal agencies when interpreting the meaning of laws. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand using the promo code amicus. And by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced an abrupt about-face on voting rights, essentially walking away from a lawsuit against a harsh voter-ID law in Texas. We discuss the reversal and its implications with Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She was one of the lawyers in the strange position of arguing the case in court this week, the day after the DOJ reversed course. We also sit down with Jeffrey Fisher, who argued an important immigration-related case at the Supreme Court his week. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions asks whether a legal immigrant can be deported for something that counts as a serious crime in some states, but not others. It also previews a question likely to play a big role in Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings: how much deference courts should give federal agencies when interpreting the meaning of laws. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand using the promo code amicus. And by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We talk with Jeffrey Fisher, author of the latest book in PLA's 'Quick Reads' Series "Building and Operating a Digital Media Lab." Topics include creating the right space; arranging funding; hiring and training staff; buying the correct equipment; writing policies and procedures, and more.

After President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March, there was widespread speculation that opposing his confirmation hearings could have political costs for Republican senators. But seven months later, it’s not clear how much the GOP’s continued obstructionism will matter to voters next month. On this episode, we discuss Obama’s handling of the Supreme Court vacancy with White House Counsel Neil Eggleston and Brian Deese, Senior Adviser to the President. We also take a closer look at Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, an important case about jury bias that was argued at the Supreme Court this week. Jeffrey Fisher, who represented the petitioner, joins us to explain why blatantly racist comments uttered by a juror in a criminal trial should invalidate that trial’s verdict.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.  Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.  And by Blue Apron. For less than 10 dollars per meal, Blue Apron delivers meal kits right to your door to make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus. Subscribe to our podcast here. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us at Facebook here.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Panoply Survey We want you to tell us about the podcasts you enjoy, and how often you listen to them. So we created a survey that takes just a couple of minutes to complete. If you fill it out, you'll help Panoply to make great podcasts about the things you love. And things you didn’t even know you loved.  To fill out the survey, just go to www.panoply.fm/survey. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices