Podcast appearances and mentions of jennifer mascott

This Day in Legal History: Medicare and Medicaid Signed into BeingOn July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The signing took place at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with former President Harry S. Truman—an early advocate for national health insurance—present and symbolically receiving the first Medicare card. Medicare was designed to provide hospital and medical insurance to Americans aged 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. Medicaid, created alongside Medicare, offered healthcare assistance to low-income individuals and families.At the time, nearly half of Americans over 65 had no health insurance. The passage of Medicare was a landmark achievement of Johnson's Great Society initiative and built on decades of political struggle over healthcare reform. The legislation amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and was strongly opposed by many in the medical establishment and conservative politicians who labeled it as “socialized medicine.” Nevertheless, the program gained rapid popularity and provided immediate relief to millions.Administered by the federal government, Medicare initially had two parts: Part A, covering hospital insurance, and Part B, covering outpatient and physician services. It has since evolved to include prescription drug coverage (Part D) and options for private plans (Medicare Advantage). The law reshaped the American healthcare landscape and established the principle that access to healthcare for seniors was a federal responsibility.The U.S. Senate confirmed Emil Bove, a former lawyer for Donald Trump and senior Justice Department official, to a lifetime seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a narrow 50-49 vote. Bove faced unified Democratic opposition and criticism from over 900 former DOJ employees, who claimed he undermined the department's integrity. His nomination prompted a Democratic walkout during the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote and drew sharp condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.Despite controversy, Republicans praised Bove's background as a federal terrorism prosecutor and his legal work defending Trump in several criminal cases. His confirmation shifts the appellate court's balance back in favor of Republican appointees. Critics cited Bove's alleged directives that defied judicial authority and political interference in a corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Bove denied wrongdoing in both instances. His confirmation is part of Trump's renewed effort in his second term to reshape the judiciary, following over 230 appointments in his first term. Trump has also nominated another close adviser, Jennifer Mascott, to the same court.Trump lawyer Bove confirmed to US appeals court, overcoming Democratic opposition | ReutersBove Confirmed to Appeals Court After Whistleblowers Emerge (1)A White House crypto task force established by President Trump is set to release a highly anticipated report outlining the administration's policy goals for the digital asset sector. The report, expected Wednesday, will address tokenization, market structure legislation, and a regulatory framework for blockchain-based financial products. Created by executive order shortly after Trump took office in January, the group is led by Bo Hines and includes top officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and SEC Chair Paul Atkins.The document is expected to support expanded use of tokenization, which converts traditional assets like stocks and real estate into blockchain-based tokens. The report may call on the SEC to create a framework enabling firms like Coinbase to offer tokenized securities, though specific language remains under wraps. It will also outline the White House's preferences for crypto legislation currently advancing in Congress, including follow-up to the recently passed stablecoin law.Trump has made pro-crypto policies a centerpiece of his administration, reversing many of the enforcement actions taken under President Biden, such as lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance. While the industry sees the report as a roadmap for mainstream integration, concerns remain about conflicts of interest, particularly given Trump's financial ties to crypto ventures and meme coins. The administration has denied any ethical violations.White House set to unveil closely watched crypto policy report | ReutersThe Trump administration has formally requested the release of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, citing public interest and mounting pressure over the government's handling of the sex trafficking cases. Prosecutors filed late-night motions with U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer, arguing that the sealed testimony should now be disclosed, though the judges had previously asked for stronger legal justification. Grand jury records are typically secret, with limited exceptions for disclosure.Trump said he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the unsealing after the Justice Department reaffirmed its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no list of elite clients—a stance that frustrated some Trump supporters who suspect a cover-up. Epstein died in 2019 before his trial; Maxwell, convicted in 2021, is serving a 20-year sentence and has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.In a related effort, a Florida judge recently denied a separate request to release grand jury records from earlier state investigations into Epstein, ruling they did not meet legal exceptions. Even if the federal judges allow the current transcripts to be unsealed, the documents may not reveal new information, since much of the testimony was covered during Maxwell's trial. The transcripts also wouldn't encompass the full scope of investigative material held by the government.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, recently met with Maxwell for two days, reportedly seeking any names or evidence she could provide about others potentially involved. Neither Blanche nor Maxwell's attorney has commented in detail on those meetings.Trump administration asks judges to release Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts | ReutersA Massachusetts jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay over $42 million to Paul Lovell, who developed mesothelioma after decades of using the company's talc products. Lovell and his wife sued in 2021, claiming the talc contained asbestos that he unknowingly inhaled, and accused J&J of failing to warn consumers despite knowing the risks. The jury awarded damages for pain, suffering, and medical costs.J&J denied any wrongdoing, calling the verdict “junk science” and saying its products are asbestos-free and safe, with plans to appeal the decision. The company ended U.S. sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020. This case adds to a string of multi-million-dollar verdicts against J&J in talc-related mesothelioma lawsuits, although some have been overturned on appeal.J&J is facing over 63,000 active lawsuits, and possibly up to 100,000 claims in total, most alleging ovarian cancer from talc use. The company's attempts to resolve the claims through bankruptcy have failed in court three times, including a $10 billion settlement proposal rejected in March. The Lovell case is part of ongoing litigation that continues to test J&J's legal strategy and product safety claims.Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $42M after jury finds talc caused man's cancer | 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

Live from the University of Michigan, Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by law professors Josh Chafetz, Aaron Nielson, Jennifer Mascott, and other special guests, to explain Humphrey's Executor and the executive power of removal. The Agenda: —Myers v. United States —Humphrey's Executor v. United States —Peekaboo —The “illimitable power of removal” —Was Madison right about “liquidation”? —Congressional accountability —Civil service reform —Justice Barrett Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jace Lington chats with Jenn Mascott about Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the broader context of the debate surrounding the special counsel investigation of the former president. Notes: Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision in US v. Trump Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in […]

Jace Lington chats with Jenn Mascott about Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the broader context of the debate surrounding the special counsel investigation of the former president.Notes:Judge Aileen Cannon's decision in US v. TrumpJustice Thomas's concurring opinion in Trump v. USJenn Mascott's Stanford Law Review article on the Appointments Clause

Professor Jennifer Mascott stops by Supreme Myths to talk Immunity, Administrative Law, and the Separation of Powers. We agree on some, disagree on a lot, and I absolutely loved the conversation.

Join the DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the George Mason Student Chapter for an evening conversation and reception. Featuring:Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityThomas McCarthy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC; Adjunct Professor, George Mason University Scalia LawProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityDoors open at 6 with the program to begin promptly at 6:30. A reception will follow. This event is free to attend.

The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State and the George Mason Law Review recently hosted a full-day symposium on the future of Chevron Deference. This episode of Gray Matters features a keynote address from Paul J. Ray, presenting his new paper about the expertise rationale for Chevron deference, and a […]

The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State and the George Mason Law Review recently hosted a full-day symposium on the future of Chevron Deference. This episode of Gray Matters features a keynote address from Paul J. Ray, presenting his new paper about the expertise rationale for Chevron deference, and a fireside chat between Mr. Ray and Gray Center Co-Executive Director Jennifer Mascott, discussing his time as Administrator of OIRA.Notes:Video from the conferencePaul J. Ray's new paper on the expertise rational for Chevron deference

On a special edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chair of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Federal Courts, and former Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) discuss ethical concerns with the Supreme Court and how Congress contributed to a contentious confirmation process. Former clerks Jennifer Mascott and Andrew Crespo talk about the internal dynamics and transparency of the Court. Supreme Court reporters Laura Jarrett, Nina Totenberg, Joan Biskupic and Dahlia Lithwick join the roundtable.

Supreme Court actions during the 2021-2022 term - opinions, grants and denials of petitions for certiorari, and motions docket orders - captured the attention of the legal community. Emblematic of the trend in judicial analysis was West Virginia v. EPA in which, notwithstanding that every brief cited Chevron for or against deference to the agency’s action, the Court’s opinion never mentioned it. Instead, the Court invoked the major questions doctrine to conclude that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations had exceeded the authority Congress had granted it in the Clean Air Act. In other decisions as well, the Court applied new degrees of weight to a variety of methodologies, doctrines, and canonical tools in its interpretations of statutes and the authority they grant the agencies assigned to implement them.This panel will explore what this new trend in judicial analysis means for future challenges to agency actions. Is the SEC’s focus on ESG, for example, within the confines of its statutory mandate? Can ERISA fiduciaries favor ESG concerns over earnings and value considerations? Is DOJ acting within its authority when it requires the target seeking to settle an enforcement action to pay, not a statutorily prescribed fine to the Federal Treasury, but non-parties, unrelated to the enforcement action? Is the Department of Education authorized to forgive student loans? Can the Department of Defense discharge military personnel for refusing a COVID vaccine? These and other questions are likely to be the subject of lively discussion by this panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Ian Gershengorn, Partner, Jenner & Block; Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law & Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of JusticeProf. Tom Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Former Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Yaakov (Jacob) M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Jennifer Mascott is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. She's a former Law Clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas & then-Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh *Follow her on Twitter: @jennmascott. SCOTUS ruling on praying coach.

George Mason University law professor Jennifer Mascott discusses past and present legal challenges to the president's power to appoint and remove executive officers.

Professor Jennifer Mascott stops by Supreme Myths to discuss the leaked opinion, administrative law, originalism, and Fed Soc.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves joins Meet The Press to discuss the expected overturn of Roe v. Wade. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel talks about the state's response to the news. Legal experts and former Supreme Court clerks Jennifer Mascott and Neal Katyal discuss the leak and the effect overturning Roe will have on the court. Ali Vitali, Josh Gerstein, Sara Fagen and Kimberly Atkins Stohr join the Meet the Press roundtable.

In the contemporary debates over the nature of executive power, two ideas are perennially prominent and intractably controversial: the unitary executive theory and nondelegation doctrine. While many prominent lawyers and judges have advocated a unitary model of the executive, it is still controversial whether the Constitution requires that the President sit at the top of the executive pyramid. And while the Court has refused to seriously revitalize the nondelegation doctrine in recent cases, voices on and off the bench persist in calling for limits on the executive’s ability to exercise lawmaking power.While these debates have modern salience, they actually predate the Constitution. Which provokes the question: what did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have to say about these topics? In what ways were their debates different from ours, and in what ways are things the same? How do their discussions shed light on our modern arguments? These questions and more will be explored by our learned panelists.Featuring:Moderator: Honorable Paul B. Matey, United States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitProf. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Anotnin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law—Albert Clark Tate, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law

In 1952, the Supreme Court smacked down President Truman's attempt to seize the nation's steel mills. The dissenters—who happened to be Truman's poker buddies—would have given the president flexibility to deal with this purported emergency, but the majority issued a swift rebuke. And one justice's concurrence has continued to shape the way we think about executive power and emergencies to this day.Thanks to our guests John Q. Barrett, Jennifer Mascott, Steve Simpson, and Noel Francisco (aka Justice Jackson).Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPodAnd check out more of PLF's work on emergency powers: https://pacificlegal.org/emergency-powers/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, we look back on the events of 2021 from a constitutional perspective—from a violent mob storming the Capitol in January, to the inauguration of President Biden, and the convergence of a new Supreme Court with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett; from key Supreme Court cases about religious liberty, voting rights, abortion, and guns, and finally, continuing questions about the scope of individual rights and government power amidst the continuing coronavirus pandemic. As 2021 comes to a close, we look back on how this year will be remembered in constitutional history. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation are Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, and Jennifer Mascott, assistant professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In this episode, we look back on the events of 2021 from a constitutional perspective—from a violent mob storming the Capitol in January, to the inauguration of President Biden, and the convergence of a new Supreme Court with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett; from key Supreme Court cases about religious liberty, voting rights, abortion, and guns, and finally, continuing questions about the scope of individual rights and government power amidst the continuing coronavirus pandemic. As 2021 comes to a close, we look back on how this year will be remembered in constitutional history. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation are Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, and Jennifer Mascott, assistant professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On October 21, 2021, the Gray Center and the Heritage Foundation co-hosted a special event to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. This event, consisting of a daytime law symposium and evening lecture, brought together jurists, legal academics and practitioners, including many of the Justice's former clerks, where we discussed his jurisprudence and impact on the Court over the past three decades. In a special evening lecture, the inaugural “Justice Clarence Thomas First Principles Award” was presented by Ambassador C. Boyden Gray to Laurence H. Silberman, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This was followed by Donald F. McGahn II's introduction of Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Leader, who provided Keynote Remarks. The lecture concluded with Concluding Thanks by Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court. This episode features C. Boyden Gray, John G. Malcolm, Jennifer Mascott, The Honorable Mitch McConnell, The Honorable Donald F. McGahn II, The Honorable Laurence H. Silberman, and The Honorable Clarence Thomas.

On October 21, 2021, the Gray Center and the Heritage Foundation co-hosted a special event to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. This event, consisting of a daytime law symposium and evening lecture, brought together jurists, legal academics and practitioners, including many of the Justice's former clerks, where we discussed his jurisprudence and impact on the Court over the past three decades. The fourth and final panel featured a Solicitors General discussion about advocacy in the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Thomas as a key influencer, over the last thirty years. It included: Noel Francisco, Partner-in-Charge of the Washington office of Jones Day and 47th Solicitor General of the United States; Paul Clement, Partner at Kirkland & Ellis and 43rd Solicitor General of the United States; Lisa Blatt, Partner and Chair of the Supreme Court and Appellate practice group of Williams & Connolly LLPm and former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and Jeffrey Wall, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and former acting Solicitor General of the United States. It was moderated by Gray Center Co-Executive Director Jennifer Mascott. This episode features Lisa S. Blatt, Paul D. Clement, Noel J. Francisco, Jennifer Mascott, and Jeffrey Wall.

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. The fourth and final panel featured two authors of recent books on presidential power: Saikrishna Prakash, author of The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument against Its Ever-Expanding Powers, and John Yoo, author of Defender in Chief: Donald Trump's Fight for Presidential Power. They were joined by University of Michigan Professor of Law Julian Mortenson. The session was moderated by the Gray Center's Co-Executive Director Jennifer Mascott. This episode features Jennifer Mascott, Julian Mortenson, Saikrishna Prakash, and John Yoo.

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. D.C. Circuit Judge and Gray Center Founder Neomi Rao sat down with Gray... Source

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. D.C. Circuit Judge and Gray Center Founder Neomi Rao sat down with Gray Center Co-Executive Director Jennifer Mascott for a conversation about her career, the administrative state, and the creation of the Gray Center. This episode features Jennifer Mascott and The Honorable Neomi Rao.

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. D.C. Circuit Judge and Gray […]

On September 17, 2021, the Gray Center hosted an event in memory of Judge Stephen F. Williams: a conference for new papers written for a symposium on his enormous legacy in law and liberty. We are grateful to our authors, who discussed their newly completed papers at this event, hosted at the Decatur House in Washington, D.C., and followed by a reception where we were all able to continue the conversation. The first panel was introduced by Adam White and focused on Judge Williams's work on administrative law and regulatory policy. It featured a panel discussion of new research papers by Ambassador C. Boyden Gray of Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC, Columbia Law School's Thomas Merrill, and Lewis & Clark Law School's James Huffman, which was moderated by Gray Center Co-Executive Director, Jennifer Mascott. Ambassador C. Boyden Gray's paper is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Gray-Judge-Stephen-F-Williams-and-the-Underestimated-History-of-the-Non-Delegation-Doctrine.pdf Thomas Merrill's paper is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Merrill-Judge-Williams-on-Administrative-Law.pdf James Huffman's paper is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Huffman-Judge-Stephen-Williams-Environmental-Jurisprudence.pdf This episode features C. Boyden Gray, James L. Huffman, Jennifer Mascott, Thomas W. Merrill, and Adam White.

Jennifer Mascott is an Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director of The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at the Antonin Scalia Law School which is at George Mason University. Professor Mascott writes in the areas of administrative and constitutional law and the separation of powers. Jennifer joins Mike to preview the upcoming Supreme Court term. The Supreme Court will have a lot of interesting cases this year, including the Dobbs case which might overturn Roe v. Wade. Mike asks Jennifer what she predicts might happen with the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned, her view on other cases involving the Second Amendment, & so much more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito gave a speech responding to criticism of the Supreme Court's emergency docket levied by, among others, his fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. On this week's episode, we explain what types of cases comprise the Court's the emergency docket—sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by scholar Will Baude—and whether the Court's approach to emergency decision-making has changed in recent years, and why. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by law professors Jennifer Mascott of George Mason Law School and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School, both of whom testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing about the shadow docket this week. They illuminate current debates surrounding the shadow docket and detail some recent decisions that have drawn increased scrutiny to the Court's emergency rulings, including in COVID-related cases, the Texas abortion case, and in challenges to some of President Trump's immigration policies. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito gave a speech responding to criticism of the Supreme Court's emergency docket levied by, among others, his fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. On this week's episode, we explain what types of cases comprise the Court's the emergency docket—sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by scholar Will Baude—and whether the Court's approach to emergency decision-making has changed in recent years, and why. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by law professors Jennifer Mascott of George Mason Law School and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School, both of whom testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing about the shadow docket this week. They illuminate current debates surrounding the shadow docket and detail some recent decisions that have drawn increased scrutiny to the Court's emergency rulings, including in COVID-related cases, the Texas abortion case, and in challenges to some of President Trump's immigration policies. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This summer, Professor Jennifer Mascott joined the Gray Center as its new Co-Executive Director. With school back in session, and the Center's fall programs underway, Jenn visited the podcast for a conversation with our other Co-Executive Director, Adam White. They discussed her current research interests, her recent experience in the Justice Department, and her plans for Gray Center programs... Source

This summer, Professor Jennifer Mascott joined the Gray Center as its new Co-Executive Director. With school back in session, and the Center's fall programs underway, Jenn visited the podcast for a conversation with our other Co-Executive Director, Adam White. They discussed her current research interests, her recent experience in the Justice Department, and her plans […]

This summer, Professor Jennifer Mascott joined the Gray Center as its new Co-Executive Director. With school back in session, and the Center's fall programs underway, Jenn visited the podcast for a conversation with our other Co-Executive Director, Adam White. They discussed her current research interests, her recent experience in the Justice Department, and her plans for Gray Center programs — beginning with an October 21 conference on Justice Thomas's thirty-year legacy on the Court, details for which are available at https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/events/justice-thomas-thirty-year-legacy-on-the-court/. This episode features Jennifer Mascott and Adam White.

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the Senate. If we were to redesign the APA for today's version of the administrative state, what would it be? To mark the 75th anniversary of the APA, on June 11, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference gathering many of the George Mason Law Review Symposium Issue authors together at the Historic Decatur House in DC for an afternoon of conversations on this and related questions. The second panel session, titled “The Life of the Law: What Has Happened Since 1946?” centered on papers by four Symposium Issue authors: The Honorable Ronald A. Cass, Aaron L. Nielson, Richard J. Pierce, Jr., and Stuart Shapiro. The panel session was moderated by Jennifer Mascott, Co-Executive Director of the Gray Center, who also gave opening remarks, along with Adam White. Links to the papers by this panel's authors are available below, and the videos from the entire event as well as all Symposium Issue papers are available at https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/events/the-75th-anniversary-of-the-apa-the-george-mason-law-reviews-3rd-annual-symposium-on-administrative-law/. This episode features Ronald Cass, Jennifer Mascott, Aaron Nielson, Richard Pierce, Stuart Shapiro, and Adam White. Papers discussed during this panel session include: “Rulemaking Then and Now: From Management to Lawmaking” by Ronald Cass, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/rulemaking-then-and-now-from-management-to-lawmaking/ “Three Wrong Turns in Agency Adjudication” by Aaron Nielson, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/three-wrong-turns-in-agency-adjudication/ “Agency Adjudication: It Is Time to Hit the Reset Button” by Richard Pierce, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/agency-adjudication-it-is-time-to-hit-the-reset-button/ “The Impossibility of Legislative Regulatory Reform and the Futility of Executive Regulatory Reform” by Stuart Shapiro, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/the-impossibility-of-legislative-regulatory-reform-and-the-futility-of-executive-regulatory-reform/

On May 17, as part of their annual Executive Branch Review Conference, the Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted an expert panel on the non-delegation doctrine.Whether as the result of hyper-partisanship or as a residue of the constitutional design for lawmaking, government by executive "diktat" is lately increasing. Many of these executive actions appear to have dubious — if any — statutory authority, but the courts have been reticent to validate objections along these lines. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to revisit and possibly to reinvigorate the non-delegation doctrine (with 5 Justices adhering to that view publicly), or at least to put some teeth into its supposedly constraining intelligibility principle. To do so, the Court first will have to grapple with whether Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution contains a non-delegation principle at all.Featuring: - Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School- Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School- Prof. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School- Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit