POPULARITY
7 episodes with kisor
6 episodes with kisor
4 episodes with kisor
4 episodes with kisor
2 episodes with kisor
4 episodes with kisor
2 episodes with kisor
2 episodes with kisor
2 episodes with kisor
On November 1, several amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines took effect. Some of these changes are significant, offering advantages to the defense, while others are less beneficial. However, ultimately, this process amounts to nothing more than "Kabuki Theatre," meaning the tortured guideline applications become merely performative, because 18 U.S.C. § 3553, enables discerning judges to overlook the sentencing recommendations provided by the guidelines. Thus, it is crucial to be informed about these amendments to argue effectively whether and how they should be considered in the final analysis. IN THIS EPISODE: Some eye-popping facts and stats after forty years of guideline sentencing; Relevant conduct amendment to now exclude acquitted conduct (but it comes with a big but…) Possibility that new litigation may void the Kisor fix because of commission overreach by overriding congress and/or resolving circuit splits; The “Kisor” work-around to fix the intended loss issue under the fraud guideline; The implication and larger application of the Kisor workaround – i.e., support for the argument that for other guidelines, if it's in the commentary, it doesn't count; Clarification of the new Zero Point Offender provisions (ZPO) to deny eligibility for anyone who gets an upward role adjustment; And, perhaps the one bright spot, adding a potential downward departure for “youthful offenders” (mid-20's or less); Practice tips for navigating the new guidelines provisions; Information on reaching out to the commission for future proposed guideline amendments. LINKS: United States Sentencing Guidelines online: https://guidelines.ussc.gov/apex/r/ussc_apex/guidelinesapp/home My new Album! The guidelines are 40 years old, which is also when I picked up my first guitar. So, yes, I had to give a shameless plug for my first rock record, "One Good Thing", which is available everywhere you stream your music! Music is another creative outlet that keeps me sane and quiets my brain: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kyVV0Qs1xMGqXQYZlzHzBgUlA7A35aENI FAREWELL 2024!!!! This will be the last new episode of 2024. As always, I wanted to thank you for listening, constributing, liking, subscribing and spreading the word about Set for Sentencing. We have been going strong for over two years now, and the show was recently ranked #7 among the 35 “must-follow” Criminal Defense podcasts in 2024, via Feedspot (35 Best Criminal Defense Podcasts You Must Follow in 2024). So, per a tradition I started in 2023, I'll be taking the rest of the year off! The remaining episodes of the year will be re-broadcasts of either other podcasts I have appeared on or some earlier episodes I adore and may have been overlooked when the audience was smaller. 2025 will be a wild ride, and we'll be right here with you, buckled up and ready to roll. Until then, I'm grateful for all of it, and I hope you find some peace, light and love as the year winds down.
Farhane v. United States, No. 20-1666 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2024) (en banc)denaturalization; ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings; Strickland; collateral consequences; Padilla Matter of Khan, 28 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2024)CIMT; categorical approach; consideration elements of sentence enhancement; gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated; Cal. Pen. Code § 191.5(b); sentencing enhancement for fleeing the scene of an accident Cal. Veh. Code § 20001(c); combining mens rea and actus reas; standalone § 212(h) waiver; continuous residence for LPR cancellation Diaz-Arellano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 22-12446 (11th Cir. Oct. 29, 2024)aging out qualifying relatives; non-LPR cancellation of removal; Loper Bright Sustaita-Cordova v. Garland, No. 23-60095 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2024)hardship review; Wilkinson and good moral character; contested facts; U visa waiver; deficient NTA claims processing rule Seldon v. Garland, No. 24-0246 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2024)fraud; § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver & joint I-751 petition; Loper Bright; Kisor deference; Bador; failure to inform about asylum or other relief; refusal to answer questions at interview Sponsors 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"Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEImmigration Lawyer's Toolboxhttps://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/immigration-reviewWant 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 & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show
What better way to start off the new year than to review some of the big guideline changes that took effect at the end of the year, and some forward looking sentencing commission proposals for changes that could be coming in 2024? We kick off this year with our friend and colleague, guidelines and sentencing stats guru, Mark Allenbaugh. He's drinking coke, I'm sipping Don Rico tequila. IN THIS EPISODE: Some major changes we gave short-shrift to in previous episodes, including the 3rd point for acceptance of responsibility, and changes to status points related to criminal history, and changes to the “safety valve provision”; The need for aggressive pre-trial litigation, and now without fear of losing the 3rd point; Newly proposed amendment pertaining to “acquitted conduct”; Newly proposed amendment moving “intended loss” into text of guideline, thereby resolving the issue created by Kisor v. Wilkie; Newly proposed amendment related to “criterion 10” of the Zero Point Offender guideline (ZIPPO), and the need to reach out to the commission to oppose this; Doug's plans to publish his book on mitigation videos in 2024. CONTACT THE SENTENCING COMMISSION (OR YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE) ABOUT PROPOSED GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS: We spent a fair amount of time on the proposed changes to the new Zero Point Offender provision, in particular, the Commissions stated desire to amend the guideline to clarify the leader/organizer exclusion. There is NO EMPIRACAL evidence to support the claim that those who participated in a conspiracy and had an enhanced role in the crime are prone to recidivism! You can find all proposed amendments here: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendments/proposed-2024-amendments-federal-sentencing-guidelines For some proposed language to include in your correspondence, this is the gist of our argument: The proposed amendment to criterion 10 to place the “continuing criminal enterprise” language into a separate criterion is not a “technical” amendment. It would presumably preclude any offender who received an upward adjustment under 3B1.1 from receiving the new downward adjustment under 4C1.1. The commission prides itself on making data/empiracally based adjustments to the guidelines. However, the Commission has cited no empirical evidence to support such a broad exclusionary criterion. Moreover, given the significant litigation that already has ensured regarding both the prospective and retrospective application of 4C1.1, any amendments now will cause further confusion over application of USSG 4C1.1. As the Commission itself has indicated, criterion 10 (in its current form) is taken from the fourth prong of the safety valve at 18 USC 3553(f)(4). Courts have interpreted 18 USC 3553(f)(4) to exclude from the safety valve only management-level drug traffickers, i.e., only those engaged in a “continuing series” of drug offenses “from which such person obtains substantial income or resources.” 21 USC 848(c)(2). Excluding such individuals from receiving the Zero Point Offender adjustment makes sense inasmuch as such offenders are, by definition, recidivists. However, the Commission created 4C1.1 to address the fact that those with zero criminal history points have significantly lower rates of recidivism than those with even a single point. As there is no evidence to suggest that an offender that otherwise meets all the 4C1.1 criteria presents a substantial risk of recidivism merely because the offender received an adjustment under 3B1.1, the Commission should decline to make further amendments to the criteria at 4C1.1 at this time. Readers may submit their comments to the Commission on or before February 22, 2024 here: https://comment.ussc.gov/apex/r/ussc_apex/publiccomment/home LINKS TO OTHER RELEVANT SET FOR SENTENCING EPISODES: Ep. 36: Presumed Guilty: Using Acquitted, Dismissed, and Uncharged Conduct to Increase Sentences: https://youtu.be/93dOQ76t7tw?si=jx1_CFV2P8JnITt8 Ep. 65: Acquitted Conduct Revisited: Mmmmm... Flavors of Evil: https://youtu.be/iRG6cbZ_YCY?si=5tOVXg2QWKES--Js Ep. 72: Imperfect 10: Why thousands will be deemed ineligible for the ZPO and what to do about it: https://youtu.be/amEXfhgMpa8?si=jEJ_W9fiGvRCDKis Last, but not least, the wonderful tequila I was sipping in this episode, is Don Rico (Don Rico Tequila | ¡Ay Qué Rico! | Austin, Texas (ayquerico.com)) I don't get compensated for these endorsements. I just love talking about (and sipping) great tequila! The cool thing about Don Rico, besides it being delicious and confirmed additive free on Tequila Matchmaker, is that the company was started by a fellow lawyer, Rick Olivo. Rick represented a major brand, fell in love with tequila, and started his own brand. It's not yet available in every state, but hopefully it will be soon.
The day after Halloween, all of the proposed guideline changes went into effect! We've talked about many of them in detail on previous podcasts, but here, we do a quick run-through of all eigiht categories of amendments. So what's in our candy bags the day after? Well, in truth, most of what we got were TREATS, but we have a few TRICKS as well. There's plenty to love here, but there are also a few catagories of offenses that could result in increased guideline calculations. Helping us get Set for Sentencing, our returning champion, guidelines guru Mark Allenbaugh to help run through all of it. IN THIS EPISODE: The EIGHT categories of guidelines changes that went into effect on 11/1/23 Some practical tips and tricks for dealing with them: Compassionate release (treat) Criminal History (treat) Acceptance of Responsibility (treat) New enhancement under the firearms guideline (trick) Career Offender guidelines (trick) Safety Valve (treat, but a lame circus peanut cleanup treat) Fentanyl enhancement (another weak treat) Sexual Abuse of a Ward Enhancement (it's a trick for the staff of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who seem to have a sexual abuse problem in their facilities, and most definitely a treat for their many victims.) Why the commission is starting to move “commentary” into the guideline itself, in order to bypass new law (Kisor) that renders commentary non-binding on judges. If you have a case involving INTENDED LOSS under the fraud guidelines, be aware of the Kisor argument that gives you a solid argument (in some circuits) that there's no such thing as “intended loss”; The connection between the Sexual Abuse of a Ward enhancement and the new expanded grounds for Compassionate release, and some practical tips for inmates who are victims of abuse in prison. OTHER PODCAST EPISODES WORTH CHECKING OUT: IMPERFECT 10 - Beware criterion 10 of the Zero Point Offender provision that seems to preclude the 2-level reduction where a person previously received a "role enhancment". Don't give up so easily on this issue! https://setforsentencing.com/podcast/imperfect10/ GOIN' RETRO: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF ZERO POINT OFFENDER AMENDMENT: https://setforsentencing.com/podcast/goin-retro-retroactive-application-of-zpo-and-status-point-amendments/ The First ZERO POINT OFFENDER PODCAST: THE ZIPPO IS ON FIRE! https://setforsentencing.com/podcast/zippo/
Dr. Dave Kisor, a professor and director of pharmacogenomics at Manchester University. He graduated from The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy in 1986 and completed a two-year fellowship in therapeutic drug monitoring/pharmacokinetics at OSU. Before he joined Manchester, Dave was professor of pharmaceutical sciences at Ohio Northern University after being a research scientist at Burroughs Wellcome Co/GlaxoWellcome. Dave has over 80 peer-reviewed publications including being the lead author on two pharmacogenomics textbooks. He is a past chair of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Pharmacogenomics Special Interest Group. Dave was named a Fellow of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology in 2017, and in 2021, along with Dr. Tom Smith, he received an AACP Innovations in PGx Teaching Award. His current research is related to PGx and opioid use disorder. Dave currently serves as co-chair of the Pharmacogenomics Global Research Network (PGRN) Education Committee and is Editor-In-Chief of Pharmacogenomics: Foundations, Competencies, and the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process.
Dr. Dave Kisor, a professor and director of pharmacogenomics at Manchester University. He graduated from The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy in 1986 and completed a two-year fellowship in therapeutic drug monitoring/pharmacokinetics at OSU. Before he joined Manchester, Dave was professor of pharmaceutical sciences at Ohio Northern University after being a research scientist at Burroughs Wellcome Co/GlaxoWellcome. Dave has over 80 peer-reviewed publications including being the lead author on two pharmacogenomics textbooks. He is a past chair of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Pharmacogenomics Special Interest Group. Dave was named a Fellow of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology in 2017, and in 2021, along with Dr. Tom Smith, he received an AACP Innovations in PGx Teaching Award. His current research is related to PGx and opioid use disorder. Dave currently serves as co-chair of the Pharmacogenomics Global Research Network (PGRN) Education Committee and is Editor-In-Chief of Pharmacogenomics: Foundations, Competencies, and the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process. Behnaz Disclaimer: These are my personal views and opinions, and I am not speaking on behalf of Castle Biosciences, Inc.
On Episode 329 of Constructing Comics - Matt interviews Clint Kisor and Noah Ray the team behind “Cosmic Caveman” coming soon to kickstarter! Check out the Kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cosmiccaveman/cosmic-caveman-and-the-volcano-worshippers?ref=clipboard-prelaunch Follow Clint online https://twitter.com/ClintKisor https://twitter.com/ClintKisor Check out Noah's IG https://www.instagram.com/noahcray/ Please give us a rating/review, and share the podcast! Give us follow to keep up with the podcast, art and news - Twitter: twitter.com/ConstrutComPod Instagram: www.instagram.com/constructingcomicspod/Facebook Facebook: facebook.com/ConstructingComic/ Check out Ageless Press linktr.ee/Ageless_Press Check out Matt online https://linktr.ee/MattKund
I discuss pharmacogenomics (PGx) with Dr. Dave Kisor from Manchester University College of Pharmacy, which is located in Fort Wayne, IN. If you're interested in pharmacogenomics, you will like this episode! Bio (Feb 2023) Dave Kisor, PharmD is professor and director of pharmacogenomics at Manchester University. He graduated from The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy 1986 and completed a two-year fellowship in therapeutic drug monitoring/pharmacokinetics at OSU. Prior to joining Manchester, Dave was professor of pharmaceutical sciences at Ohio Northern University after being a research scientist at Burroughs Wellcome Co/GlaxoWellcome. He has been a clinical PGx consultant since 2012. He has over 80 peer reviewed publications including being the lead author on two pharmacogenomics textbooks. He is a past chair of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) PGx SIG. Dave was named a Fellow of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology in 2017. In 2021 he received an AACP Innovations in PGx Teaching Award. His current research is related to PGx and opioid use disorder. He also serves as co-chair of the Pharmacogenomics Global Research Network (PGRN) Education Committee. Thank you for listening to episode 201 of The Pharmacist's Voice ® Podcast! To read the full show notes, visit https://www.thepharmacistsvoice.com. Click on the podcast tab, and search for episode 201. Subscribe to or Follow The Pharmacist's Voice Podcast! Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Spotify Amazon/Audible
In this episode, Shipley Deutrick from “BlueBuzz, LLC” explains how sometimes the cops just need a do-over. Also, he gets very defensive about classic film beauties. Plus, Griff Chisolm, Chief Promoter of the “International Wrestling Federation of the World” tells us how the long-running “Hogswood Beatdown” program still appeals to white men ages 60-65. ABOUT THE PERFORMERS: Aaron Paulsen (Shipley Deutrick) is a Vermont-born improviser currently based in Chicago, where he performs on the team Onion River and publishes crosswords. Follow him at scootsbaboo on Twitter and Twitch. Kate Kisor (Griff Chisolm) is a comedian who co-hosts the podcast “House Calls,” a Real Housewives podcast. She is also a frequent co-host of Tuesday night trivia at Vermont Comedy Club. Special thanks to Sam Kurnit, Noel Porter and Rachael Sherman for the advertisement voice work. ABOUT THE PODCAST: The Corporation is a podcast hosted by Dean Ardenfell (Nathan Hartswick), a superfan of the global corporation Hogswood Cooper Media. In this important series, Dean seeks to interview folks who work for the many different subsidiaries of Hogswood Cooper. This podcast is a production of Unicow Media, the official podcast network of Vermont Comedy Club, located in beautiful Burlington, Vermont. Subscribe to The Corporation on: * Apple Podcasts * Spotify * Stitcher
(note: time stamps are without ads & may be off a little) This week Beth and Wendy discuss the case of Tony Ables, a black man in St Petersburg, Florida, who was convicted of two murders and connected via DNA to two others. We dive into the setting (14:54), the killers early life (35:05) and the timeline (37:08). Then, we get into the investigation & arrest (43:47), "Where are they now?" (53:38) followed by our takeaways and what we think made the perp snap (56:57). As usual we close out the show with some tips on how not to get murdered and our shout outs (01:00:27). Researched and scripted by Minnie Williams. Don't forget that Fruitloops is going to be at CrimeCon April 21-May 1, 2022. Use our code FRUITLOOPS to tell them that we sent you and to get 10% off your tickets! https://www.crimecon.com/cc22 Thanks for listening! This is a weekly podcast and new episodes drop every Thursday, so until next time... look alive guys, it's crazy out there! Sponsors Better Help https://www.betterhelp.com/Fruit Best Fiends https://apps.apple.com/us/app/best-fiends-puzzle-adventure/id868013618 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Seriously.BestFiends&hl=en_US&gl=US June's Journey https://apps.apple.com/us/app/junes-journey-hidden-objects/id1200391796 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?d=net.wooga.junes_journey_hidden_object_mystery_game&hl=en_US&gl=US Shout Outs Raising Dion https://www.netflix.com/title/80117803 My Grandmother's Hands (book) https://www.amazon.com/My-Grandmothers-Hands-Racialized-Pathway/dp/1942094477 The Minds of Madness Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-minds-of-madness-true-crime-stories/id1191274361 The Gilded Age Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-official-gilded-age-podcast/id1605253822 Where to find us: Our Facebook page is Fruitloopspod and our discussion group is Fruitloopspod Discussion on Facebook; https://www.facebook.com/groups/fruitloopspod/ We are also on Twitter and Instagram @fruitloopspod Please send any questions or comments to fruitloopspod@gmail.com or leave us a voicemail at 602-935-6294. We just might read your email or play your voicemail on the show! Want to Support the show? You can support the show by rating and reviewing Fruitloops on iTunes, or anywhere else that you get your podcasts from. We would love it if you gave us 5 stars! You can make a donation on the Cash App https://cash.me/$fruitloopspod Or become a monthly Patron through our Podbean Patron page https://patron.podbean.com/fruitloopspod Footnotes Articles/Websites Wikipedia contributors. (01/18/2022). Tony Ables. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Ables Raghunathan, A. (12/06/2006). Police say DNA solves 2 murders. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2006/12/06/police-say-dna-solves-2-murders/ Tampa Bay Times. (02/18/1987). Kisor, Deborah D. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/43532361/obituary-for-deborah-d-kisor-aged-31/ Rodgers, W. (06/06/1990). Beating death called domestic violence. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/322377901/?terms=%22Tony%20Abels%22%20tampa&match=1 Tampa Bay Times. (06/06/1990). Roommate charged in woman's death. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/337944239/?terms=%22Tony%20Abels%22%20tampa&match=1 Tampa Bay Times. (06/06/1990). Woman, 48, beaten to death. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/337944157/?terms=%22Tony%20Abels%22%20st%20petersburg&match=1 Tampa Bay Times. (01/13/1971). Grand Jury shuns probe request. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56388463/tony-ables-indicted/ Tampa Bay Times. (01/15/1971). Groce. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56388793/obituary-for-thornton-groce/ St. Petersburg Times. (12/21/1970). Boy 15, is arrested in fatal-shooting case. Retrieved 02/03/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/317116876/?terms=%22Thornton%20Groce%22&match=1 The Tampa Tribune. (03/20/1971). Youth gets life for murder. Retrieved 02/03/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/331902371/?terms=%22Thornton%20Groce%22&match=1 Richardson, Lynda. ( 06/27/1983). Slaying at retirement hotel unnerves elderly tenants. Retrieved 02/03/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/320316468/?terms=%22Adeline%20McLaughlin%22&match=1 Richardson, Lynda. ( 06/27/1983). Slaying from 1-B. Retrieved 02/03/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38078599/slaying-at-retirement-hotel-unnerves/ Tampa Bay Times. (02/15/1987). Passer-by finds woman's body near park. Retrieved 02/02/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/321254301/?terms=%22Deborah%20Kisor%22&match=1 The Tampa Tribune. (03/02/1987). Slaying from Page 1. Retrieved 02/03/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/336729804 The Tampa Tribune. (05/12/1992). Arrest made in slaying. Retrieved 02/03/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38078783/arrest-made-in-slaying/ The Tampa Tribune. (03/07/1987). Man's sentence goes from death to life. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38079165/ans-sentence-goes-from-death-to-life/ The Orlando Sentinal. (12/07/2006). Cops: Inmate linked to 2 other killings. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38079667/cops-inmate-linked-to-2-other-killings/ Tampa Bay Times. (08/06/2015). ABLES, CLyde E.. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://www.newspapers.com/image/364478028/?terms=ABLES%2C%20Clyde%20E.&match=1 Wikipedia contributors. (11/14/2021). Charlotte Correctional Institution. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Correctional_Institution St. Petersburg College News. (12/10/2013). St. Petersburg College to honor educators and civic leaders Cecil B. Keene, Doug Jamerson. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://newsspc.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/st-petersburg-college-to-honor-educators-and-civic-leaders-cecil-b-keene-doug-jamerson/?preview=true&preview_id=5033&preview_nonce=6717515a5a Ancestry.com. (n.d.). Arie Lee Reed in the Florida, U.S., County Marriage Records, 1823-1982. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/901555296:61369 Ancestry.com. (n.d.). Adeline A Mclaughlin in the Florida, U.S., Death Index, 1877-1998. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=7338&h=2969311&tid=&pid=&queryId=d4fe5e44adc5f6e879677452d233fb80&usePUB=true&_phsrc=MMh27&_phstart=successSource Ancestry.com. (n.d.). Marlene C Burns in the Florida, U.S., Death Index, 1877-1998. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=7338&h=4777455&tid=&pid=&queryId=f7c698758f499bb5ef7880375128621b&usePUB=true&_phsrc=MMh28&_phstart=successSource Ancestry.com. (n.d.). Arie Lee Ables in the U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/43066783:60901?tid=&pid=&queryId=6d2f71ab7f06e3271db5f2d0f4ea9c76&_phsrc=MMh32&_phstart=successSource Ancestry.com. (n.d.). Clyde Ables in the Florida, U.S., Divorce Index, 1927-2001. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=8837&h=1954920&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=1732 Ancestry.com. (n.d.). Thornton Groce in the Florida, U.S., Death Index, 1877-1998. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=7338&h=1679244&tid=&pid=&queryId=9eb02d8ae9c48297f39cf5982bb946cd&usePUB=true&_phsrc=MMh39&_phstart=successSource History Wikipedia contributors. (12/29/2021). Indigenous peoples of Florida. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Florida Wikipedia contributors. (01/31/2022). Florida. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida Wikipedia contributors. (01/01/2021). History of St. Petersburg, Florida. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_St._Petersburg,_Florida Wikipedia contributors. (01/17/2022). St. Petersburg, Florida. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg,_Florida Wikipedia contributors. (01/27/2022). African Americans in Florida. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_Florida Stpete.org. (2022). A Walk Through History. Retrieved 02/04/2022 from https://www.stpete.org/residents/parks___recreation/african_american_heritage_trail.php Wikipedia contributors. (02/04/2022). Compromise of 1877. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02/06/2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877 Video Toups, Kristin. (1/21/2022). Tony Alvin Ables- Abandonment issues, Petty Theft and Murder. YouTube. Retrieved 2/27/2022 from https://youtu.be/GJWs8Z80sE8 Music “Abyss” by Alasen: ●https://soundcloud.com/alasen●https://twitter.com/icemantrap ●https://instagram.com/icemanbass/●https://soundcloud.com/therealfrozenguy● Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License “You Have The Right” by Marlene Miller. Used with permission. Find her Facebook and Instagram under SEMNCHY or marlenemiller138@gmail.com “Death Row” by Yung Kartz https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Yung_Kartz Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License “Furious Freak” by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3791-furious-freak License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Connect with us on: Twitter @FruitLoopsPod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/fruitloopspod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Fruitloopspod and https://www.facebook.com/groups/fruitloopspod
Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, No. 20-1192 (4th Cir. Feb. 15, 2022) biometrics notice; Matter of D-M-C-P-; definition of notice; Kisor deference; regulatory interpretation; preamble; due process; foreign language interpretation Ortiz Narez v. Garland, Nos. 19-72039, 20-71416 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2022) CIMT; CA voluntary manslaughter; categorical approach; scienter; recklessness Ferreiras v. Garland, No. 19-4111 (2d Cir. Feb. 17, 2022) CIMT, NY petit larceny, certification; categorical approach; Diaz-Lizarraga; permanent deprivation; substantial erosion of property rights Xu v. Garland, No. 19-1044 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2022) Final Administrative Removal Order (“FARO”); expedited removal; MA “keeping a house of ill fame”; MA money laundering; prostitution aggravated felony; jurisdiction; China; CAT deferral; 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(i); favorable circumstances Gomez-Abrego v. Garland, No. 20-2175 (1st Cir. Feb. 16, 2022) Asylum; withholding; CAT; El Salvador; particular social group; nexus; gangs; police; exhaustion; ultra vires Deng Chol v. Garland, No. 20-3268 (8th Cir. Feb. 16, 2022) CAT; South Sudan; Uganda; conscription; tribal definition; pro se; due process; prejudice; exhaustion *Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"Want to become a patron of Immigration Review? Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewDISCLAIMER: Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review® podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review® podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)
In the pilot episode of the PRP, Adam chats with first time marathoners Helena Kisor (guest) and Dane Nielsen (guest host) who are both preparing to run the Surf City Marathon in Huntington Beach, CA on September 11th, 2021. Helena opens up about battling an illness during a peak portion of her training camp and shares how it affected her both physically and mentally. Dane keeps it cool and helps Adam establish some structure and reoccurring themes for future episodes. Recorded September 7th @ 10:30 PM EST --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/preracepodcast/support
The U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled a retreat from deference to agency guidance in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Court narrowed judicial deference available to agencies construing their own ambiguous regulations. But what about judicial deference to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency housed in “within the Judicial Branch,” and which Justice Scalia derided as a “junior varsity Congress,” making policy choices that should be committed to the legislature? In Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to the commentary the Sentencing Commission issued construing their formally adopted Sentencing Guidelines, unless they are “inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of,” the relevant Guideline. The Stinson Court required such deference even if the Commission's interpretation “may not be compelled by the guideline text.” On June 17, the Supreme Court's conference is slated to include discussion on a series of cases percolating up from the courts of appeals that all raise similar challenges to the use of Stinson deference in deciding criminal defendants' sentences. The Court seems poised to grant certiorari to one or more of these cases challenging deference in order to resolve a broad and deep split among the circuits that reflects inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide. Or, at least, it would explain why the court has been holding some of these cert petitions for over six months in order to consider all of them together—perhaps in order to select the best vehicle from among the slew of petitions clamoring for the Court's consideration. Here to discuss the pending Stinson deference cert petitions is appellate attorney John Elwood, a partner at Arnold & Porter who is better known in some circles as the relist guru on SCOTUSblog. John filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of Zimmian Tabb in a case out of the Second Circuit—one of the first Stinson deference cases to reach the Supreme Court last fall. John will explain what's at stake in the reconsideration of Stinson deference, including the following questions: Do constitutional due process and the rule of lenity preclude Stinson deference when commentary to a Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence? Do courts owe deference to Guidelines commentary that appears to expand the scope of the Sentencing Guidelines? Post-Kisor, may courts defer to commentary without first determining whether the pertinent Guideline is ambiguous? Post-Kisor, must courts apply canons of construction like the rule of lenity before granting the agency deference? And, practically speaking, what might the Supreme Court be looking for to select the best vehicle for reconsideration of Stinson deference from among the pending cert petitions? Moderating the discussion will be New Civil Liberties Alliance Executive Director and General Counsel, Mark Chenoweth. NCLA authored another of the cert petitions pending before this week's conference at the Court on behalf of a defendant in the Eighth Circuit, Marcus Broadway. Featuring:-- John P. Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter -- Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
[1:48] Ep. preview with United States v. Abdul Aziz (1st Cir. Jun. 2, 2021) Massachusetts marijuana and hemp[2:44] Garland v. Dai, No. 19-1155 (U.S. June 1, 2021)adverse credibility; presumption of credibility; deemed credible; persuasiveness [8:26] Garcia-Deleon v. Garland, No. 20-3957 (6th Cir. June 4, 2021)administrative closure; Castro-Tum; regulatory interpretation; provisional unlawful presence waiver; 8 C.F.R § 212.7(e)(4)(iii) [13:29] Padilla-Franco v. Garland, No. 20-2415 (8th Cir. June 2, 2021)asylum; past persecution; particular social group; extortion; BIA standard of review [17:09] Rubalcaba v. Garland, No. 17-70845 (9th Cir. June 2, 2021)sua sponte motion to reopen; departure bar; Kisor deference [23:06] Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 19-15091 (11th Cir. June 1, 2021)nexus; family-based particular social group; government acquiescence; MS-13; El Salvador*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"*Want to become a patron of Immigration Review? Check out our Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview *CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/*Featured in the top 15 of Immigration Podcast in the U.S.! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review® podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review® podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)
[2:13] Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S., No. 20-1843 (3d Cir. May 5, 2021)administrative closure; regulations; regulatory interpretation; Kisor deference; DACA [8:56] Romero v. Att’y Gen. U.S., No. 19-3705 (3d Cir. May 5, 2021)reinstatement; withholding only proceedings; jurisdiction; notice of referral; Form I-863; Pereira[12:51] K.A. v. Att’y Gen. U.S., No. 17-3640 (3d Cir. May 4, 2021)second-degree New Jersey robbery in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:15-1; aggravated felony “theft offense” under INA § 101(a)(43)(G); New Jersey theft; consent through fraud; affirmative defense [22:43] Guzman-Garcia v. Garland, No. 20-1966 (7th Cir. May 3, 2021)asylum; withholding of removal; well-founded fear; gangs; Mexico [25:37] Gonzalez-Veliz v. Garland, No. 19-72090 (9th Cir. May 4, 2021) abandonment of asylum application; biometrics; continuance; good cause [32:23] Artola v. Garland, No. 19-1286 (8th Cir. May 5, 2051) LPR cancellation of removal; INA § 240A(a); TPS; admission; INA § 244(e); statutory construction; plain text[38:49] Route v. Garland, No. 19-72854 (9th Cir. May 6, 2021)CIMT within 5 years; INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i); Micronesia; Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003; US-FSM COFA § 141; Matter of Alyazji; admission; Chevron deference; unpublished BIA decision Links referenced in Arcos Sanchez :https://bit.ly/3bbU9mKhttps://bit.ly/3to1wh6*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"*Want to become a patron of Immigration Review? Check out our Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview *CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewDISCLAIMER: Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review® podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review® podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)
Why is submission important? Why did Jesus enter into submission for us? Experience another powerful and amazing audio sermon from the pulpit of Crow Mountain Baptist Church and Pastor Howard J. Kisor, Jr. Gather around and turn up the volume on your favorite audio listening device as our pastor takes you through a series of...
On February 15, 2021, Erin M. Hawley and Jennifer Nou joined the Federalist Society’s Chicago Student Chapter for a discussion on the future of administrative law.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women’s Law CenterJennifer Nou, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolIntroduction: Hallie Saunders, Programming Director, The Federalist Society’s Chicago Student Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On February 15, 2021, Erin M. Hawley and Jennifer Nou joined the Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter for a discussion on the future of administrative law.Featuring:- Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center- Jennifer Nou, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School- [Introduction] Hallie Saunders, Programming Director, The Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter
On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Administration Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Regulatory Practice and Oversight in 2021 and Beyond." While we think of “The Administrative State” as the relatively permanent apparatus of government, it has no lawful powers beyond those vested in officials the voters have chosen. “[T]he Constitution presumes that lesser executive officers will assist the President in discharging his duties.” (Seila Law) Those duties are, for the most part, implementing, administering, and enforcing the provisions of the laws Congress has enacted. What, then, are the implications of the 2020 elections for regulatory policy?From the earliest days of his Administration, President Trump made it a priority to cut back on the regulations he believed were impeding American economic success. Among other things, he instructed agencies to drop two regulations for each one added, and to comply with all procedural requirements in issuing guidance, and the Department of Justice announced it would not defend “subregulatory guidance.” In response to the arrival and spread of the contagious and deadly novel coronavirus, additional regulatory streamlining accelerated the approval of vaccines and other medical technologies, and of federally funded or permitted projects. Where do these initiatives stand? What will a second term/new administration bring? What will the 117th Congress do? Will it give early attention to administrative rules under the Congressional Review Act? Recent Supreme Court decisions on delegation (Gundy), on deference (Kisor), and on presidential authority (Seila Law) mean that Congressional oversight, and the President’s management, of the administrative state will play out on an evolving landscape of administrative law.This panel will discuss the likely consequences of the post-election prevailing winds.Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School Law; President, Cass & Associates Hon. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Resident; Co-Director, Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawProf. Adam J. White, Assistant Professor of Law, Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Resident Scholar, American Enterprise InstituteModerator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
“Common Bond” was the morning message that was delivered by our pastor, Howard J. Kisor, Jr., on Sunday, September 6th. Have you ever wondered what the common bond was that held Christians together? Listen in as our pastor provides you with the secret sauce that truly bonds Christians of all denominations together. This is certainly … Common Bond Read More »
“Common Bond” was the morning message that was delivered by our pastor, Howard J. Kisor, Jr., on Sunday, September 6th. Have you ever wondered what the common bond was that held Christians together? Listen in as our pastor provides you with the secret sauce that truly bonds Christians of all denominations together. This is certainly...
Cases as discussed in order:[01:20] Reyes Vargas v. Barr, No. 17-9549 (10th Cir. May 14, 2020) sua sponte motion to reopen; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1); departure bar; jurisdiction; Kisor; Auer; agency deference[10:30] Diaz Ortiz v. Barr, No. 19-1620 (1st Cir. May 15, 2020)asylum; El Salvador; MS-13; gangs; adverse credibility, evidentiary admissibility; due process[13:38] Francisco v. Att’y Gen. U.S., No. 19-2700 (3d Cir. May 15, 2020)CIMT; theft; Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga; retroactivity[16:45] Munoz-Granados v. Barr, No. 19-60758 (5th Cir. May 12, 2020)asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture; Mexico; past persecution; death threats; gangs; persecution of family members; burdens[20:40] Lona v. Barr, No. 17-70329 (9th Cir. May 15, 2020)sua sponte motion to reopen; sua sponte motion reconsider; fundamental change in law; equitable tolling*CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.com Facebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: http://immigrationreview.buzzsprout.com*Featured as Top 15 Immigration Podcasts! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER:Immigration Review is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)
This teleforum will focus on the sundry problems with so-called "Brand X deference," whose name derives from the 2005 Supreme Court decision in National Cable & Telecom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Services. The judicial deference holding in the case was that federal agencies may issue new regulations that supersede previous interpretations of the relevant statute made by federal courts of appeals (unless that prior federal-court interpretation purported to be the only permissible interpretation of the statute). Hence, even if a federal circuit court of appeals has previously interpreted a statute, if an agency with jurisdiction subsequently issues a new regulation interpreting that statute differently, the federal court in a future case must defer (i.e., give Chevron deference) to the agency’s new interpretation of the statute. This month the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether or not to take up a case that could do for Brand X deference what Kisor v. Wilkie did for Auer deference. That is, the Court could radically reduce the scope of Brand X’s application and/or clarify that Brand X deference only applies when a prior federal court did not use traditional tools of statutory analysis in interpreting the statutory provision at issue. Or, the Court could go even further and do away with Brand X deference altogether, as then-Judge Gorsuch called for when he was serving on the Tenth Circuit.Join us for this timely discussion of Baldwin v. U.S. (cert pending).Featuring: -- Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director & General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance -- Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale
This teleforum will focus on the sundry problems with so-called "Brand X deference," whose name derives from the 2005 Supreme Court decision in National Cable & Telecom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Services. The judicial deference holding in the case was that federal agencies may issue new regulations that supersede previous interpretations of the relevant statute made by federal courts of appeals (unless that prior federal-court interpretation purported to be the only permissible interpretation of the statute). Hence, even if a federal circuit court of appeals has previously interpreted a statute, if an agency with jurisdiction subsequently issues a new regulation interpreting that statute differently, the federal court in a future case must defer (i.e., give Chevron deference) to the agency’s new interpretation of the statute. This month the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether or not to take up a case that could do for Brand X deference what Kisor v. Wilkie did for Auer deference. That is, the Court could radically reduce the scope of Brand X’s application and/or clarify that Brand X deference only applies when a prior federal court did not use traditional tools of statutory analysis in interpreting the statutory provision at issue. Or, the Court could go even further and do away with Brand X deference altogether, as then-Judge Gorsuch called for when he was serving on the Tenth Circuit.Join us for this timely discussion of Baldwin v. U.S. (cert pending).Featuring: -- Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director & General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance -- Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale
The seventh installment of Ropes & Gray's podcast series, Non-binding Guidance, dives into the closely watched administrative law case, Kisor v. Wilkie. This Supreme Court case addresses the continued validity of the doctrine articulated in the 1997 Supreme Court case Auer v. Robbins, regarding judicial deference to federal administrative agency interpretations of their own regulations. In this episode, Ropes & Gray partner Greg Levine interviews his colleagues, Doug Hallward-Driemeier and Beth Weinman, about the factual background, opinions, and potential implications of Kisor, with particular emphasis on its significance for FDA-regulated life sciences companies seeking to challenge FDA or other federal agency regulatory interpretations. Among other things, Beth and Doug discuss the signals the Kisor case sends about the future of Chevron deference, which addresses the related question of judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes. Tune in to this discussion to learn about key takeaways from the Supreme Court's Kisor ruling and its potential impact on FDA-regulated companies.
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel focused on the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie and the increased attention given to deference that is paid by administrative agencies' legal interpretations.In judicial opinions, such as the Supreme Court’s recent opinion Kisor v. Wilkie, and in academia, there is increased attention to deference that is and should be paid to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations. This panel will address these developments, make some predictions about future developments, and discuss whether those likely developments are good, bad, or neither.Prof. Emily Bremer - University of Notre Dame Law SchoolAdam White - Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State, George Mason UniversityProf. David Zaring - The University of PennsylvaniaModerator: Hon. Paul B. Matey - U.S. Court of Appeals, Third CircuitIntroduction: Matthew Hank, President, The Federalist Society Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel focused on the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie and the increased attention given to deference that is paid by administrative agencies' legal interpretations.In judicial opinions, such as the Supreme Court’s recent opinion Kisor v. Wilkie, and in academia, there is increased attention to deference that is and should be paid to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations. This panel will address these developments, make some predictions about future developments, and discuss whether those likely developments are good, bad, or neither.Prof. Emily Bremer - University of Notre Dame Law SchoolAdam White - Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State, George Mason UniversityProf. David Zaring - The University of PennsylvaniaModerator: Hon. Paul B. Matey - U.S. Court of Appeals, Third CircuitIntroduction: Matthew Hank, President, The Federalist Society Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Interview with Professor Manus of New England Law | Boston. This interview explores the Supreme Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie this past summer, many scholars and practitioners have deliberated its significance. Professor Jeffrey Lubbers from American University Washington College of Law joins the show to discuss the history of the Auer deference doctrine, how the Court came to its decision, and its effect on agencies' authority moving forward. The Administrative Law Review: www.administrativelawreview.org If you have any questions about this episode, the guests, or the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or a guest, please email Sarah Knarzer at ALR-Sr-Tech-Editor@wcl.american.edu.
It's a tough week for small government, as the Auer doctrine, the 21st Amendment, and local business associations all took one on this chin from the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim discuss agency deference in Kisor v. Wilkie, and the Dormant Commerce Clause's effect on residency requirements for alcohol licenses in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Board v. Thomas. Law starts at (10:20).
The SALT Show Episode 67 (Update for Week of July 14, 2019) On this week's episode: • A primer on judicial deference to administrative agencies in SALT litigation and the Kisor case • A couple of GILTI updates – Oregon and New York • Oregon passes CAT correction bill • Louisiana passes passthrough entity SALT deduction cap workaround • Texas cost of goods sold in the Supreme Court (AMC Theaters) Links to share the podcast with colleagues: bakerbotts.com, iTunes, Stitcher, GooglePlay, Podbean, Spotify
The Immigration Lawyers Podcast | Discussing Visas, Green Cards & Citizenship: Practice & Policy
Sabrina Damast: http://www.sabrinadamast.com/sabrina-damast Kisor v. Wilkie (2019): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-15_9p6b.pdf
The Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term will soon be over, but the need for serious analysis has just begun. Did the High Court get the big cases right? What will the Court’s ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association mean for the future of religion in the public square? How will Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone, the partisan gerrymandering cases, impact the next election cycle? Will the ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie rein in administrative agencies? How have Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh changed the balance of the Court, and have any broader themes of the Roberts Court emerged this term?Please join us as our distinguished panels of practitioners and journalists discuss these cases and more from the 2018-2019 term. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The Kisor case decided recently by the Supreme Court reined in so-called "Auer deference," but what changes about regulating going forward? Will Yeatman comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This morning the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden will join us today to discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications -- including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterStephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
This morning the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden will join us today to discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications -- including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterStephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Last week the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered.Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications — including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center- Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Last week the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered.Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications — including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center- Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Steve Dixon and Kevin Kenworthy of Miller & Chevalier discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold Auer deference in Kisor v. Wilkie and what it means for the Treasury and the IRS.For additional coverage, read these articles in Tax Notes:Auer Deference Survives, But ‘Neutered’ and ‘Zombified’U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Auer Won’t Affect Tax CasesConservative Justices Question Feasibility of Auer’s SurvivalGorsuch Dissent Could Signal Beginning of the End for Chevron
Today's episode revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong -- and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up! We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN's Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that "BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?" (No.) But it is significant, and you won't want to miss why. Then, it's time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don't remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We've got you covered -- including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch's interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch. After that, it's time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should... drink more when you're pulled over? (It's a weird question.) As if that wasn't enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who's responsible? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the "A" segment, and to verify what we've said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz's request; (b) the Court's order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew! We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts's holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
Auer and seminole rock stand.
Recent Supreme Court decisions are creating significant changes in the practice of employment law. Hosted by Geoff Probst at the Florida Bar Annual Convention, Kevin Johnson discusses what lawyers need to know about these developments. They highlight recent cases and examine how Kisor vs. Wilkie affects the balance of power between courts and agencies. Later, they briefly discuss employment law developments around the classification of gig economy employees and the impacts of medical marijuana in drug-free workplaces. Kevin D. Johnson is a shareholder of Johnson Jackson LLC and has represented management in labor and employment law matters for 25 years.
Last week, nearly 2 million Hong Kong residents gathered to protest a newly proposed extradition bill. Helen Raleigh, senior writer at the Federalist, joins the show to explain the current extradition agreements held between Hong Kong and China, why so many in Hong Kong are angry about the bill and how the extradition bill, if passed, would threaten Hong Kong's rule of law. After that, Acton's Trey Dimsdale is joined by Anne Rathbone Bradley, affiliate scholar of economics at Acton, and Adam MacLeod, professor of law at Faulkner University. Together, they break down Kisor v. Wilkie, a case currently pending in the Supreme Court. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
A case in which the Court held that Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, are not overruled.
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The luncheon panel was titled "Revisiting Judicial Deference."The Department of Justice position taken in Kisor v. Wilke seems to acknowledge that Auer deference is in jeopardy and is a marked difference in tone from how DOJ has continued to strongly defend executive authority in its arguments and briefing in the lower appellate courts. Historically, two key defenses in this area have been the now-controversial deference doctrines of Chevron (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer) and Auer/Seminole Rock (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of their own regulations). Is the administration making a strategic retreat in an attempt to protect those doctrines from a Court where a majority of its members have signaled an openness to revisiting them? Or does this reflect a commitment to the judicial use of traditional tools of textual interpretation to overcome ambiguity, reining in agency autonomy, and discouraging congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to agencies? Furthermore, with cert pending in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission, thirteen states in amicus arguments see a new opportunity to reconsider Chevron. As Chevron and Auer/ Seminole Rock form significant parts of the superstructure of the modern administrative state, what does this mean for the future of the constitutional balance?* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPProf. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityModerator: Ms. Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & ConnollyIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The luncheon panel was titled "Revisiting Judicial Deference."The Department of Justice position taken in Kisor v. Wilke seems to acknowledge that Auer deference is in jeopardy and is a marked difference in tone from how DOJ has continued to strongly defend executive authority in its arguments and briefing in the lower appellate courts. Historically, two key defenses in this area have been the now-controversial deference doctrines of Chevron (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer) and Auer/Seminole Rock (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of their own regulations). Is the administration making a strategic retreat in an attempt to protect those doctrines from a Court where a majority of its members have signaled an openness to revisiting them? Or does this reflect a commitment to the judicial use of traditional tools of textual interpretation to overcome ambiguity, reining in agency autonomy, and discouraging congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to agencies? Furthermore, with cert pending in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission, thirteen states in amicus arguments see a new opportunity to reconsider Chevron. As Chevron and Auer/ Seminole Rock form significant parts of the superstructure of the modern administrative state, what does this mean for the future of the constitutional balance?* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPProf. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityModerator: Ms. Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & ConnollyIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
Deference is one of those magical words in the world of regulatory policy. Different types of deference play a huge role in how courts and federal agencies interact when it comes to deciding cases, and those cases in turn help shape federal policy on everything from healthcare to financial markets to environmental protection. We say that upfront, because we’re about to dip our toes in the waters of administrative law, that’s the branch of law that deals with how regulations are made, and Chad's the only non-lawyer here at the table. So he reserves the right to interrupt and ask for clarifications as we go. That said, we’re here today to talk about Kisor v. Wilkie, a case currently before the US Supreme Court. On paper, this is a case about the Department of Veterans’ Affairs decision to deny a veteran benefits. James Kisor is the veteran, and Robert Wilkie is the Secretary of the VA. But as with any case before the Supreme Court, more is at stake here than just the people named in the individual case, and here to explain why this case matters and what we know about it so far are two regulatory legal experts. First, we're happy to welcome back to the show Jennifer Huddleston. Jennifer is a scholar here at Mercatus whose work often focuses on the intersection between technology and regulation. She’s been on the Download here before to talk about transportation innovation as well as data privacy. Second, from all the way on the other side of the building, we’re joined by Adam White. Adam is the Executive Director of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State here at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He’s also a law professor there and wears a handful of other academic and policy hats. Follow Chad on Twitter @ChadMReese. Check out the Bridge for all Mercatus research, all the time. Love the show? Give us a rating on Apple Podcasts! It helps other podcasts listeners find the show. Today's What's on Tap beverage is brought to you by Devil's Backbone Brewing Company in Lexington, Virginia.
How did a Vietnam War veteran’s request for disability benefits turn into one of the key Supreme Court cases of this term, one with major implications for the future of the administrative state? In this episode, administrative law experts Jonathan Adler of Case Western Law School and Ron Levin of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law explain the issues in this case, Kisor v. Wilkie. They join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack Kisor and the administrative law deference doctrine, known as “Auer deference,” at the center of the dispute. They also break down other administrative law doctrines like “Chevron” and “Skidmore” deference and the non-delegation doctrine, explaining why they’re so important and at times, controversial. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
How did a Vietnam War veteran’s request for disability benefits turn into one of the key Supreme Court cases of this term, one with major implications for the future of the administrative state? In this episode, administrative law experts Jonathan Adler of Case Western Law School and Ron Levin of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law explain the issues in this case, Kisor v. Wilkie. They join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack Kisor and the administrative law deference doctrine, known as “Auer deference,” at the center of the dispute. They also break down other administrative law doctrines like “Chevron” and “Skidmore” deference and the non-delegation doctrine, explaining why they’re so important and at times, controversial. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
This week's case covers Kisor v. Wlkie, which specifically questions whether or not Supreme Court precedent that defers to agency interpretations of their own regulations is Constitutional. This case covers admin law in general, when a Court should overturn precedent, and whether or not the Constitution permits delegating such power to un-elected officials. Now, just in case that sounds too serious, the words "The Farts Doctrine" comes up more than once. Law starts at (03:49).
On Wednesday, March 27th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center- Andrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates- [Moderator] Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
On Wednesday, March 27th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center- Andrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates- [Moderator] Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Today's classic, deep-dive Tuesday takes an in-depth look at two critical issues in the news: first, the recent effort by the Republican governor and state legislature in Florida to undo the broadly popular Constitutional Amendment passed during the 2018 midterms to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, and second, the Supreme Court's next assault on the "administrative state," this time, by likely ending the doctrine of Auer deference. We begin with an update about pending oral arguments before the Supreme Court, as well as a notice that this episode was bumped from last Tuesday to make way for our emergency Barr Summary episode. Then, it's time for a deep-dive into Florida, the process of citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and exactly what the state legislature intends to do to undermine the will of the public. After that, it's time for yet another deep dive, this time into Kisor v. Schulkin, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, in which the petitioners have asked the Court to flat-out overrule yet another well-established conservative doctrine simply on the grounds that the Federalist Society doesn't like it. Then, as always, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #120 regarding a light touch on the bus. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing this same subject (but with respect to Utah). If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links In the pre-show, we discuss gerrymandering, which we last talked about in depth in Episode 251. We mentioned the Washington Post story about the DC City council overturning the $15/hr minimum wage initiative. This is the text of PCB CRJ 19-03, the Florida bill under consideration. And here, by the way, is the link to Andrew Gillum's voter registration initiative, Bring It Home Florida. We've never talked about Auer deference before, but we have discussed Chevron deference at great length, most recently in Episode 136. You can click here to read Auer v. Robbins, that 9-0 liberal decision authored by noted socialist Antonin Scalia. Finally, click here to read the underlying CAFC-Opinion in Kisor v. Schulkin. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
On the morning of March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Importantly, the United States filed a merits brief in Kisor that forcefully criticized Auer/Seminole Rock deference, yet argued that the Court should not overrule Auer and Seminole Rock “in their entirety.” The brief foreshadows what will likely be a memorable oral argument, featuring Paul Hughes of Mayer Brown LLP and Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Hughes represents James Kisor, the Vietnam War veteran who is the petitioner in the case. Kisor is challenging a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that denied Kisor’s request for retroactive disability benefits connected to his wartime service. Francisco will be defending the VA’s decision.Karen Harned, Andrew Varcoe, and moderator Stephen Vaden will join us on the afternoon of March 27 to discuss that morning’s oral argument in Kisor and its potential implications -- including the implications, if any, for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Harned and Varcoe will have attended the oral argument that morning and will be sharing their observations about it. Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterAndrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & AssociatesModerator: Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
On the morning of March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Importantly, the United States filed a merits brief in Kisor that forcefully criticized Auer/Seminole Rock deference, yet argued that the Court should not overrule Auer and Seminole Rock “in their entirety.” The brief foreshadows what will likely be a memorable oral argument, featuring Paul Hughes of Mayer Brown LLP and Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Hughes represents James Kisor, the Vietnam War veteran who is the petitioner in the case. Kisor is challenging a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that denied Kisor’s request for retroactive disability benefits connected to his wartime service. Francisco will be defending the VA’s decision.Karen Harned, Andrew Varcoe, and moderator Stephen Vaden will join us on the afternoon of March 27 to discuss that morning’s oral argument in Kisor and its potential implications -- including the implications, if any, for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Harned and Varcoe will have attended the oral argument that morning and will be sharing their observations about it. Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterAndrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & AssociatesModerator: Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
The preponderance of ambiguously worded regulations from federal agencies – think the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – will be at the center of a major legal challenge coming March 26 to the nation’s highest court, and you’ll hear the details here during this edition of Monitor Mondays.That’s when Jennifer Gustafson will report our lead story, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) taking up the case of Kisor vs. Wilkie (U.S. Marine James Kisor vs. the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs).The dispute is over denied Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. In 1997, SCOTUS ruled that generally, federal courts are required to accept an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous relations; this rule today is known as Auer deference.Gustafson is a founding shareholder with The Health Law Partners, representing hospitals, health systems, hospices, home health agencies, physicians, and other healthcare providers and suppliers in an array of legal matters.Other segments on the broadcast include:Monday Focus: LTACH vs. Managed Care: Limiting access of Medicare patients to long-term acute care (LTAC) facilities by health insurance companies; reported on by Marvin Mitchell, the director of case management and social work at San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, east of Los Angeles.Prime Healthcare: Prime Healthcare Services will pay $65 million to settle a federal whistleblower lawsuit that accused the California hospital chain of Medicare fraud. Famed whistleblower attorney Mary Inman, has the latest news on this major story.Hot Topics: Monitor Mondays senior correspondent Nancy Beckley, president and CEO of Nancy Beckley and Associates, returns to report on all the latest hot topics.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser returns to Monitor Mondays with his popular segment, in which he reports on problematic issues facing providers.Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, maks his Monday Rounds with another installment of his popular segment. Dr. Hirsch will also be following up on his segment last Monday on how to bill for inpatient services when there is no admission order.
Hoover Institution fellows Richard Epstein and Adam White discuss Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for an unprecedented “wealth tax,” and the constitutional problems that it raises. They also discuss the Supreme Court’s upcoming case on judicial “deference” to agencies’ legal interpretations (Kisor v. Wilkie).
Hoover Institution fellows Richard Epstein and Adam White discuss Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for an unprecedented “wealth tax,” and the constitutional problems that it raises. They also discuss the Supreme Court’s upcoming case on judicial “deference” to agencies’ legal interpretations (Kisor v. Wilkie).
A new case headed to the Supreme Court may challenge a great deal of deference courts currently afford federal agencies. Andrew Grossman comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
