Podcast appearances and mentions of Lucia V Sec

Constitutionality of ALJs NCLA filed an amicus brief in Fleming, et al. v. USDA, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC and taking issue with the USDA's use of Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) who violate Article II and the separation of powers. No statute, law, or court precedent compelled the decision. Longstanding precedent requires courts to fulfill their “unflagging” duty to hear such constitutional challenges which protect Americans from this merciless and illogical flex of government power.  On February 16th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia filed a disappointing ruling —leaving Mr. Fleming in a legal limbo where his constitutional separation-of-powers claim cannot be heard by a real Article III judge. The Fleming case contested the USDA's use of ALJs in a way that violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In this episode, Mark discusses the D.C. Circuit's decision in Fleming, et al. v. USDA.  Read more here: https://nclalegal.org/amicus-brief-fleming-et-al-v-united-states-department-of-agriculture/   Tax Season Later in the episode, Vec describes Ali Taha's battle against the IRS and the problems with Brand X deference by the Courts. During Fiscal Year 2019 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processed approximately 253 million tax returns and other forms. But if the case of NCLA client Ali M. Taha is any indication, there is no guarantee that the IRS will acknowledge receipt of your tax return or tax-refund claim, and you might just end up in court trying to get your money back.  Mr. Mohamad E. Taha and Ms. Sanaa M. Yassin, filed a claim seeking refund of taxes overpaid in 2002, 2003, and 2004, but the IRS asserts it never received the filing. The CFC conducted a trial on the question of whether Mr. Ali Taha had mailed the tax-refund claim to IRS. The court concluded that Mr. Taha's testimony was credible and that he had indeed mailed the tax-refund claim. However, IRS argued that an amended 2011 regulation prohibits witness testimony on the timely-mailing question and instead only recognizes certified or registered mail receipts as adequate proof of mailing. The regulation conflicts with the applicable statute, which several courts have read to allow witness testimony on this very question. Moreover, the regulation contradicts the centuries-old common law “mailbox rule” that allows such testimony. A canon of statutory construction called the common law presumption canon forbids construing statutory silence to override the common law. Read more here: https://nclalegal.org/ali-m-taha-on-behalf-of-his-deceased-brother-and-his-brothers-wife-v-united-states/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Eleven months ago the Federal Circuit held that the Administrative Patent Judges who serve on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, were unconstitutionally appointed because they act as “principal officers” within the meaning of the Constitution but were not appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate as required by the Appointments Clause. The court adopted a narrow “remedial approach” in which it “sever[ed] any problematic portions [of the statute] while leaving the remainder intact.” The court thus invalidated Title 5’s removal restrictions, as applied to these administrative patent judges. , See 35 U.S.C. § 3(c). Because the APJs can be removed without cause, the court concluded that, going forward they were inferior as opposed to principal officers. It has remanded scores of cases to the PTAB for reconsideration by a new panel of APJs.All parties have sought certiorari. The government argues that there was no Appointments Clause violation at all, and regardless that no remands were required. The patent owner argues that the Federal Circuit did not go far enough, and that there is no remedy for the purported Appointments Clause violation here. And some are of the view that the Federal Circuit got it just right. As the Supreme Court turns to its October 2020 Term, it will decide whether to take up this issue, following on decisions such as Lucia v. SEC and Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius.The stakes are high. Left unaltered, the Federal Circuit’s decision will lead to do-overs for potentially hundreds of invalidated patents. And if the patent owners’ arguments were to prevail, it would potentially bring down the entire statutory regime for Patent Office review (or at least re-review) of patentability decisions -- affecting hundreds of patents (and ultimately patent cases) each year. John O’Quinn, a frequent Federal Circuit practitioner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington D.C., will introduce the topic and its implications for patent practice, and Professor Aditya Bamzai, an expert on the Appointments Clause from the University of Virginia Law School, will discuss the constitutional issues presented by the caseFeaturing: John O'Quinn, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Eleven months ago the Federal Circuit held that the Administrative Patent Judges who serve on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, were unconstitutionally appointed because they act as “principal officers” within the meaning of the Constitution but were not appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate as required by the Appointments Clause. The court adopted a narrow “remedial approach” in which it “sever[ed] any problematic portions [of the statute] while leaving the remainder intact.” The court thus invalidated Title 5’s removal restrictions, as applied to these administrative patent judges. , See 35 U.S.C. § 3(c). Because the APJs can be removed without cause, the court concluded that, going forward they were inferior as opposed to principal officers. It has remanded scores of cases to the PTAB for reconsideration by a new panel of APJs.All parties have sought certiorari. The government argues that there was no Appointments Clause violation at all, and regardless that no remands were required. The patent owner argues that the Federal Circuit did not go far enough, and that there is no remedy for the purported Appointments Clause violation here. And some are of the view that the Federal Circuit got it just right. As the Supreme Court turns to its October 2020 Term, it will decide whether to take up this issue, following on decisions such as Lucia v. SEC and Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius.The stakes are high. Left unaltered, the Federal Circuit’s decision will lead to do-overs for potentially hundreds of invalidated patents. And if the patent owners’ arguments were to prevail, it would potentially bring down the entire statutory regime for Patent Office review (or at least re-review) of patentability decisions -- affecting hundreds of patents (and ultimately patent cases) each year. John O’Quinn, a frequent Federal Circuit practitioner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington D.C., will introduce the topic and its implications for patent practice, and Professor Aditya Bamzai, an expert on the Appointments Clause from the University of Virginia Law School, will discuss the constitutional issues presented by the caseFeaturing: -- John O'Quinn, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP -- Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Despite its limited scope, the Supreme Court's decision in Lucia v. SEC has stirred debate over its potentially far reaching ramifications. Judge Scott Maravilla of the Federal Aviation Administration sat down with the Administrative Law Review to discuss the Court's ruling, and what it might mean under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. 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.

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:Lucia v. SEC (Supreme Court June 2018), and its application to the MSPBHiller v. DHS, (Fed. Cir. 2018-1244) (nonprecedential) (April 22, 2019) (MSPB prehearing submissions and witness statements)DHS, C&BP and National Border Patrol Council, 71 FLRA 106 (April 10, 2019) (application of "essence" review authority to substantive determination of arbitrator on grievance concerning approval for outside employment)

This week, Jason and Easha discuss a new executive order and accompanying guidance by the Trump Administration that dramatically change the rules for hiring Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) across the entire federal government. Easha starts the discussion by explaning the background of the federal bureaucracy, what role ALJs play, and why that role has changed after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucia v. SEC. They then discuss the Trump Administration's response to Lucia, which, taken as a whole, substantially changes the way ALJs are hired and could potentially alter the reasons they can be fired. Easha and Jason consider whether the changes—which will permit the President to have more control over administrative judges—are good or bad, and they also wonder whether these issues will ever be aired in court. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating other important cases, including the Manafort case and the census case.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe President's executive order is here.The DOJ guidance memo is here. Reuters first posted the memo in a story that can be found here.Jason discussed updates to the census and national monuments cases. Those updates were based on this article (census) and this one (monuments). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. 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.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. 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.

Welcome back to Counting to 5, a podcast about the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, I review the Court’s decisions issued on June 21, 2018, in four argued cases, including Lucia v. SEC, a case about the constitutionality of the appointment of the SEC’s administrative law judges, and South Dakota v. Wayfair, a … Continue reading Episode 054: Livestream — Internet Sales Tax and Administrative Law Judges

The newly clarified role and status of administrative law judges will drive litigation for years, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in. Walter Olson and Trevor Burrus comment on Lucia v. SEC. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).Kevin Muhlendorf of Wiley Rein and Professor Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law join us to give their impressions of the oral argument of this important case.Featuring:Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawKevin B. Muhlendorf, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. 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.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).Kevin Muhlendorf of Wiley Rein and Professor Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law join us to give their impressions of the oral argument of this important case.Featuring:Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawKevin B. Muhlendorf, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. 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 week on the podcast: D.C. Circuit extravaganza featuring special guests Professor Aaron Nielson, wanted “Anti-Administrativist” and Sage of the C.A.D.C.; and Cate Stetson, Hogan Lovells’ legendary appellate litigator who is one of the D.C. Circuit’s most frequent (and successful litigators). We record the episode with a LIVE student audience at Georgetown Law Center (thanks to our hosts, the students of the Georgetown chapter of the Federalist Society). Hear Aaron and Cate discuss what makes the D.C. Circuit unique? What are the biggest admin law issues coming out of the court? And just who is Judge Posner’s “mystery” D.C. Circuit judge, anyway? Plus: a lightning round of trivia about the current judges. WARNING: this episode’s guests may be armed with anti-deference arguments. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Links to a few items we discuss on this episode: Aaron Nielson's JREG post on the Lucia v. SEC oral argument: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-en-banc-oral-argument-part-ii/ Law Prof Kent Barnett’s article on Administrative Law Judges (ALJs): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144217 Aaron Nielson’s JREG post on Judge Posner’s D.C. Circuit “Mystery Judge”: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-can-you-guess-the-mystery-judge/ IJ’s latest lawsuit, a free speech challenge to the FDA’s Orwellian “skim milk” labeling regulations: http://ij.org/case/fda-skim-milk/ Aaron Nielson’s JREG post on the D.C. Circuit’s quirky “asterisk rule”: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-by-aaron-nielson/

The SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d). Featuring:Shane Kelly, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. 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 SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d). Featuring:Shane Kelly, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. 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.