Podcasts about mootness

Introduction to Constitutional Law Overview of Constitutional Law Definition and Scope Importance in the Legal System History and Development of the U.S. Constitution Historical Background and Framing The Federalist Papers Key Influences and Philosophies Structure of the Constitution Preamble Articles and Amendments Principles of Constitutional Interpretation Part I: The Federal System Federalism Definition and Significance Dual Sovereignty The Tenth Amendment Interstate Relations and the Full Faith and Credit Clause Separation of Powers Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers Checks and Balances Non-Delegation Doctrine The Supremacy Clause Federal Preemption The Hierarchy of Laws The Commerce Clause Historical Development Modern Interpretation Impact on Federal and State Powers Part II: The Judicial Branch Judicial Review Marbury v. Madison Scope and Limits of Judicial Review Judicial Power and Jurisdiction Article III Courts Original and Appellate Jurisdiction Justiciability Doctrines (Standing, Mootness, Ripeness, Political Question) The Role of the Supreme Court Case Selection and Certiorari Process Influential Supreme Court Cases Interpretation of the Constitution Part III: The Legislative Branch Powers of Congress Enumerated Powers Implied Powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause Legislative Process Bill to Law Bicameralism and Presentment Limitations on Congressional Power Enumerated and Implied Limits Enforcement and Interpretation by Courts Commerce and Taxing Powers Regulation of Interstate Commerce Taxing and Spending Powers Limits on Commerce and Taxing Authority Part IV: The Executive Branch Powers of the President Enumerated and Implied Powers Executive Orders and Presidential Directives Foreign Affairs and War Powers Treaty-Making Authority Commander-in-Chief Powers War Powers Resolution Administrative Agencies Creation and Regulation Rulemaking Authority Checks on Presidential Power Impeachment Congressional and Judicial Oversight Part V: Individual Rights and Liberties Bill of Rights Purpose and Historical Context Application to Federal and State Governments First Amendment Rights Freedom of Speech and Press Freedom of Religion (Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses) Freedom of Assembly and Petition Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms Individual vs. Collective Rights Debate Due Process and Equal Protection Substantive and Procedural Due Process Equal Protection Clause Standards of Review (Rational Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, Strict Scrutiny) Privacy Rights Right to Privacy Landmark Cases (Griswold, Roe, Casey) Modern Implications Rights of the Accused Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments Miranda Rights Exclusionary Rule Part VI: Application and Contemporary Issues State Action Doctrine Definition and Scope Public Function and Entanglement Tests Incorporation Doctrine Selective Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Impact on State Laws Modern Constitutional Controversies Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights Voting Rights and Election Law Affirmative Action Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues Emerging Issues in Constitutional Law Digital Privacy and Surveillance Healthcare and the Commerce Clause Immigration and Executive Power --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Huynh v. Garland, No. 23-1318 (8th Cir. May 28, 2024)sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony; possession of child pornography; INA § 101(A)(43)(a); Iowa Code § 728.12(3); INA § 101(a)(43)(L); CIMT; realistic provability and case exemplars Lopez-Sorto v. Garland, No. 21-2107 (4th Cir. May 31, 2024)CAT protection; mootness and physical removal; ICE's Facilitation of Return Policy; reverting back to LPR status; Rodriguez-Arias; J-F-F-; aggregating torture; El Salvador; expert testimony Stankiewicz v. Garland, No. 21-6265 (2d Cir. May 31, 2024)relating to controlled substance; closes match for generic offense; INA § 101(a)(43)(B); Matter of Rosa; distributing a controlled substance on or near school property, in violation of N.J. Stat. § 2C:35-7; 21 U.S.C. § 841; 21 U.S.C. § 860; double jeopardy and different sentences don't necessarily mean divisibility; Mathis peak last resort; jury instructions with fill in the blank for drug Black v. Decker, No. 20-3224 (2d Cir. May 31, 2024)mandatory detention; INA § 236(c); Mathews Test; government interest; ability to pay and alternative means; bond hearing; Jennings; prolonged detentionSponsors 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"Filevine"Your Complete Legal Tech Stack, Supercharged by AI"Promo: Immigration.AI/ImmigrationReview Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant 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.

The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre, decided March 19, 2024.   Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

Rulemaking Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) A process that requires agencies to publish proposed rules, allowing the public to comment before final rules are enacted, ensuring transparency and public participation. Exemptions and Exceptions to Notice-and-Comment Requirements Certain situations, such as emergencies or matters of minor significance, may exempt agencies from the full notice-and-comment process. Final Rule Issuance and Publication After considering public comments, agencies finalize and publish rules in the Federal Register, making them official and enforceable. Legislative vs. Interpretative Rules and Policy Statements Legislative Rules: Have the force of law and affect individual rights and obligations. Interpretative Rules: Clarify or interpret existing statutes or regulations without the force of law. Policy Statements: Indicate how an agency intends to exercise its discretionary powers. Adjudication Formal vs. Informal Adjudication Formal Adjudication: Involves a trial-like hearing with an administrative law judge. Informal Adjudication: Less formal processes without a hearing, often based on written submissions. Due Process Requirements in Agency Adjudications Agencies must follow due process, providing fair notice and an opportunity to be heard, ensuring decisions are made impartially and based on evidence. Hearings, Evidence, and Decision-Making Hearings allow for the presentation of evidence and arguments. Agencies must base their decisions on the evidence presented, adhering to legal standards. Appeals and Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Decisions can be appealed within the agency and may be subject to judicial review, where courts examine the agency's compliance with the law and due process. Judicial Review of Agency Actions Standards of Review: Chevron Deference, Skidmore Deference, Arbitrary and Capricious Standard Chevron Deference: Courts defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes it administers. Skidmore Deference: Courts give weight to an agency's interpretation based on its persuasiveness and expertise. Arbitrary and Capricious Standard: Courts review whether an agency's action was based on a consideration of relevant factors without clear error in judgment. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Individuals must typically go through all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Standing, Ripeness, and Mootness in Challenges to Agency Actions Standing: The right of an individual to bring a lawsuit based on their stake in the outcome. Ripeness: Whether a dispute has developed sufficiently to be ready for judicial review. Mootness: Whether there is still an actual controversy to resolve, affecting the court's ability to provide relief. Administrative Procedures Act (APA) Overview and Significance of the APA The APA is a key statute that governs how federal administrative agencies may propose and establish regulations, ensuring transparency, fairness, and public participation. Procedural Requirements under the APA for Rulemaking and Adjudication The APA sets out detailed processes for rulemaking and adjudication, including notice-and-comment procedures and requirements for formal hearings. Judicial Review Provisions in the APA The APA provides standards and procedures for courts to review agency actions, ensuring they comply with the law and respect individual rights. Open Government and Accountability Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) FOIA allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government, promoting transparency. Government in the Sunshine Act This act requires that meetings of certain federal agencies be open to the public, further ensuring transparency and accountability. Ethical Standards and Conflict of Interest Regulations for Agency Officials and Employees --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This week, Imani and Jess dive into civil procedure (sorry Jess) as they discuss whether the Supreme Court will kick a case that could interfere with enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They explain what civil rights testers do, what case mootness is, and why the Court should—and probably will—decline to rule in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer on standing.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

This week, Imani and Jess dive into civil procedure (sorry Jess) as they discuss whether the Supreme Court will kick a case that could interfere with enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They explain what civil rights testers do, what case mootness is, and why the Court should—and probably will—decline to rule in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer on standing.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

With GC on vacation, Jack Fitzhenry joins Zack to dive into what’s happening at SCOTUS. They discuss the new cases the Court has agreed to hear, the oral arguments involving the CFPB’s funding, whether an ADA tester’s lawsuit is moot, and whether South Carolina legislators committed an unconstitutional gerrymander when drawing its latest Congressional map. […]

With GC on vacation, Jack Fitzhenry joins Zack to dive into what's happening at SCOTUS. They discuss the new cases the Court has agreed to hear, the oral arguments involving the CFPB's funding, whether an ADA tester's lawsuit is moot, and whether South Carolina legislators committed an unconstitutional gerrymander when drawing its latest Congressional map.Zack then interviews Judge Miller Baker of the Court of International trade about his career and what's happening in the legal profession today.Finally, Zack sees how well Jack can answer trivia about Jack's alma mater (University of Michigan) and SCOTUS.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Israel declares war on Hamas after the terrorist organization murders hundreds of civilians. But now, with Israel already carrying out attacks in Gaza, things are about to get litigious. David French analyses the meanings and implications of the Law of War and debates Sarah Isgur whether International Law is even a thing. Plus if you want to hear David explain the moral dimension of war law, join The Skiff for a short impromptu follow up discussion. -Military tribunals -Ukraine/Russia comparison -The complicated, interesting, and weird details of the Acheson Hotel case -Mootness versus standing doctrines in the CFBP case Show Notes: -Urban Warfare Project by John Spencer -Law of Land Warfare To get The Skiff on your personal podcast player: CLICK HERE to get your personal feed. How to subscribe to The Skiff: To follow The Skiff on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or wherever you catch your podcasts, please follow these instructions: -Choose which device you prefer to listen on (Mac, iOS, Android…). –Click here to get your personal feed. (Make sure you're logged in as a Dispatch member!) -Select The Skiff. -Select your device and podcast player (Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, etc.): this will let you subscribe to the feed for direct updates! Note: If your preferred podcast player asks you to subscribe by RSS feed you'll need to copy and paste a URL link. To get that link, go back to the menu with all of the options to subscribe (the page with all of the player logos), scroll to the bottom, and copy the link you see there. Then, go back to your player and paste it in the field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdan Follow Pat on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/   Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Horizon West: Affirm Acheson Hotels: DIG or dismissed as moot 7th Circuit can be found at: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.22-3191.22-3191_10_03_2023.mp3 SCOTUS can be found at: 22-429 (supremecourt.gov)

Audio of Chapman v. Doe (March 20, 2023) Justice Jackson, Dissenting to Grant for Certiorari (Abortion, Munsingwear Vacatur, Dobbs v. Jackson, Mootness)  

In a surprising turn, a motion for "Mootness" was upheld in Canadian court recently that got the government off the hook for their implementation of some of the world's most discriminatory travel restrictions during the pandemic. In a baffling failure in logic, the judge who upheld this motion to dismiss said if the government brought them back in the future, the people should just challenge them in court... ----- Subscribe to the Social Disorder Substack to get all the links, extras and info for the podcast like the one you just listened to: https://thesocialdisorder.substack.com/ This episode is made possible by: BioPro+: https://bioproteintech.com/product/biopro-plus Take Back Alberta - TBA - : https://t.me/takebackalberta and The Canadian Story podcast: https://www.thecanadianstory.com/

What happens when the court fails to make required findings? Probably not, because the California Supreme Court says you still have to demonstrate prejudice. But in this episode of the California Appellate Law Podcast, Jeff Lewis and Tim Kowal talk about how, in certain kinds of cases, the prejudice analysis may give a very light touch, and so your chances of reversal are much higher.Some recent cases suggest the courts may be pointing in different directions in appeals involving missing findings.Jeff and Tim also cover some other recent cases that you may want to have in your toolkit:Failing to request a statement of decision changed the outcome of the appeal in Marriage of Burger.Missing findings in a domestic-violence custody case led to reversal in Hutchins v. Hutchins, even though the omission really was not prejudicial.Untimely Appeals May Be Excused If There Was a Mishap with E-Filing, held Garg v. Garg.A Dismissed Appeal Is Not “On the Merits” If the Dismissal Was for Mootness, held Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. Windeshausen.Does the Memo of Costs form have a fatal error by omitting the “penalty of perjury” language? Yes, says a dissenting justice in Srabian v. Triangle Truck Center.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Tim Kowal's Weekly Legal Update, or view his blog of recent cases.Use this link to get a 25% lifetime discount on Casetext.Other items discussed in the episode:Failure to Request a Statement of Decision Changed the Outcome of This AppealCourts Really Mean It That Written Findings Are Required to Rebut the Fam. Code § 3044 Domestic-Violence PresumptionLawyer Toolkit: Untimely Appeals May Be Excused If There Was a Mishap with E-FilingA Dismissed Appeal Is Not “On the Merits” If the Dismissal Was for MootnessArbitration Not Waived by 13 Months of Litigation? Supreme Court to Weigh InFatal Error in Judicial Council Cost Memorandum Form, Says Dissenting JusticeVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Matter of Ortega-Quezada, 28 I&N Dec. 598 (BIA 2022)INA § 237(a)(2)(C); firearm offense; exchange; ammunition; gratuitous transfer; divisibility; double jeopardy; similarly-worded statutes; Pereida Martinez Alquijay v. Garland, No. 20-70470 (9th Cir. July 27, 2022)untimely asylum filing; one-year deadline; extraordinary circumstances; legal disability; stress; young age; failure to speak English Garcia-Marin v. Garland, No. 20-3393 (7th Cir. July 29, 2022)reinstatement; deferral of removal; physical removal; mootnessShkembi v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 21-2592 (3d Cir. July 27, 2022)visa waiver program violators; fraud at entry; photo-switched passport; asylum-only proceedings; withdraw of asylum application; adjustment of status; due process and motion to reopen; INA § 245(c)(4); Albania*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"Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your host!More episodes!Case notes!Top 15 immigration podcast in the U.S.!Featured in San Diego Voyager!DISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection; and  whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the free speech and free exercise clauses, the establishment clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it. Date Proceedings and OrdersSep 14 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 18, 2021)Sep 16 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Joseph A. KennedySep 20 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 18, 2021 to December 7, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Sep 21 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 7, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Bremerton School DistrictOct 14 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Professional Football Players Steve Largent and Chad Hennings filed.Oct 15 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Current State Legislators filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Coach Tommy Bowden filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Chaplain Alliance For Religious Liberty filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Galen Black filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, et al. filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Pennsylvania Family Institute filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Twenty-Four States filed.Oct 18 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancing American Freedom, et al. filed.Dec 07 2021 | Brief of respondent Bremerton School District in opposition filed.Dec 21 2021 | Reply of petitioner Joseph A. Kennedy filed. (Distributed)Dec 22 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.Jan 10 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.Jan 14 2022 | Petition GRANTED.Jan 21 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Joseph A. KennedyJan 21 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Bremerton School DistrictFeb 16 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty filed.Feb 18 2022 | Suggestion of mootness filed by respondent Bremerton School District. (Distributed)Feb 22 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Justice Center filed.Feb 23 2022 | Brief of petitioner Joseph A. Kennedy filed.Feb 23 2022 | Joint appendix filed (statement of costs filed).Feb 23 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.Feb 24 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Constitutionals Rights Union filed.Feb 25 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Darrell Green filed.Feb 25 2022 | Response to Suggestion of mootness filed. (Distributed)Feb 28 2022 | Reply in Support of Suggestion of Mootness filed. (Distributed)Feb 28 2022 | Brief amici curiae of World Faith Foundation, et al. filed.Mar 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Thomas More Society filed.Mar 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.Mar 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation and Southeastern Legal Foundation filed.Mar 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Family Policy Alliance and State Family Policy Councils filed.Mar 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Current State Legislators filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Coach Tommy Bowden filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Chaplain Alliance For Religious Liberty filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The American Cornerstone Institute filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Galen Black filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Former Professional Football Players Steve Largent and Chad Hennings filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Former Attorneys General, Edwin Meese II, et al. filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Kirk Cousins, et al. filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal Foundation filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, et al. filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The America First Policy Institute filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The American Legion filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Elisabeth P. DeVos and Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Christian Legal Society filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Advancing American Freedom, Young America's Foundation, and 42 Additional Organizations and Individuals filed (3/18/22 brief and PDF to be corrected and resubmitted.)Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Advancing American Freedom, Young America's Foundation, and 39 Additional Organizations and Individuals filed. (03/24/2022). (Distributed)Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Twenty-Seven States filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Protect The First Foundation filed.Mar 15 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, April 25, 2022.Mar 16 2022 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.Mar 17 2022 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Mar 23 2022 | CIRCULATEDMar 25 2022 | Brief of respondent Bremerton School District filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Bremerton Community Members - BHS Football Team Alumnus, Parents, Community Leaders, and Educators filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Church-State Scholars filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Jo Ann Magistro and Alan Brodman filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Washington State School Directors' Association filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Washington filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Forum on the Military Chaplaincy and Former Members of the Military and Military Chaplaincies filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Former Professional Football Players Obafemi D. Ayanbadejo, Sr., et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Religious and Denominational Organizations and Bremerton-Area Clergy filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Atheists, Inc. filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Washington State Charter Schools Association and California Charter Schools Association filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of California School Boards Association and its Education Legal Alliance filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Psychology and Neuroscience Scholars filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Robert D. Kamenshine filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of City, county, and local public employer organizations filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Motion of City, County, and Local Public Employer Organizations for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.Apr 14 2022 | Motion of City, County, and Local Public Employer Organizations for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument DENIED.Apr 15 2022 | Reply of petitioner Joseph A. Kennedy filed. (Distributed)Apr 25 2022 | Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Richard B. Katskee, Washington, D. C.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Positive Developments in Lawsuit Backing RI Oral Surgeon The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) has dismissed a Compliance Order that shut down Dr. Stephen Skoly's practice last October for not complying with Rhode Island's vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. NCLA's lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Skoly pressured the state to allow him to get back to serving his patients. Dr. Skoly, one of Rhode Island's few oral and maxillofacial surgeons—whose services are critical to the community—has natural immunity to Covid-19 and also has unique medical circumstances that put his health at risk if he were to get the Covid-19 vaccine. In refusing to recognize Dr. Skoly's naturally acquired immunity to Covid-19 and denying his request for a medical exemption from the vaccine mandate, RIDOH had harmed hundreds of Rhode Island patients, including its most vulnerable (residents of the state's psychiatric hospital and prison), who, in Dr. Skoly's absence, have suffered due to the absence of necessary surgeries. John discusses the latest positive developments in the case. Third Circuit's Mootness Problem in Johnson v. Murphy NCLA's lawsuit on behalf of New Jersey landlords challenging Governor Murphy's Executive Order No. 128 was dismissed as moot by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which reasoned that the order had expired and was unlikely to be repeated. Mark talks about the mootness problem and Third Circuit's decision in Johnson v. Murphy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Merrick Garland Rescinds the “Brand Memo” on Guidance Recently, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum and interim final rule, which effectively rescinded the “Brand Memorandum.” In January 2018, then-Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand issued the memo, in which she instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) that it was prohibited from using agency “guidance” documents to prosecute defendants for civil violations, including under the False Claims Act. Attorney General Garland directed DOJ attorneys not to rely on sub-regulatory agency guidance to bring False Claims Act cases and other enforcement actions. The Mootness Doctrine in Government Litigation  Vec discusses the mootness doctrine in government litigation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court “munsingweared” several cases in its Monday orders, including two Trump emoluments cases. After a deep dive into the legal history of munsingwear precedent—a modern mootness doctrine—David and Sarah discuss a Texas deportation case filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, pretrial release conditions for those who were arrested during the January 6 Capitol siege, and a Supreme Court original jurisdiction case. A special guest also joins the show to chat about Wendy’s chicken sandwiches!   Show Notes: -United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. and Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. -“The Great Chicken Sandwich (Meal) Wars, Settled” by Sarah Isgur in The Dispatch. -Take our podcast survey See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

[2:11] Mendoza-Flores v. Rosen, No. 19-60225 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020)mootness; removal from the U.S.; collateral legal consequences; T-Visa [6:59] Flores v. Rosen, No. 17-72888 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2020)Special Agricultural Worker program (SAW); admissibility; statutory construction [11:31] USA v. Al-Muwwakkil, No. 18-6201 (4th Cir. Dec. 28, 2020)violent felony; ACCA; crime of violence aggravated felony; divisibility; categorical approach; attempted rape in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-44; burglary in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-90 [16:17] Garcia-Simisterra v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 19-13848 (11th Cir. Dec. 30, 2020)INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) aggravated felony; +$10,000 amount of loss; circumstance specific approach; plea agreement; nolo contender plea; withhold adjudication of guilt*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, San Diego, 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/4.0Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

The Supreme Court gives us something to write home about this week, as the podcast covers cases that are dismissed on procedural grounds, and not on the merits.  This includes City of Boise v. Martin (criminalizing homelessness), NY Rifle Assoc. v. NYC (criminalizing gun travel), and Trump v. Vance (bird-doggin' those tax returns).  Law starts at (06:20), but the podcast ends with KING OF THE JUICES!!

The Supreme Court heard a case about the Second Amendment… or was it about mootness? I also talk about the duty of care owed to hockey players.Music Cred: http://www.bensounds.com

Nationwide injunction critics say the remedy prevents lower court percolation; the 9th Circuit will test that thesis after ordering briefing on whether an injunction from Pennsylvania moots the local appeal. Scholars Howard Wasserman (FIU Law) and Alan Trammell (Univ. Arkansas Law) offer competing views.

In this episode, Paul provides an update on Food & Water Watch v. Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-1714.  Recently the federal district court in D.C. found that the environmental groups have standing and the case is not moot.  Paul explains all that and next steps in the case. . Materials discussed in this episode: Buffalo River Watershed Alliance v. USDA, No. 4:13-cv-450-DPM, 2014 WL 6837005 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 2, 2014). Goeringer, Paul, Challenge Brought Against Decision to Approve Loan Guarantee for Maryland Poultry Farm (AREC, Oct. 11, 2017). Goeringer, Paul, Federal Court Agrees that Environmental Plaintiff Has Standing to Challenge USDA Loan Guarantee Granted to Poultry Farm (AREC, Oct. 10, 2018). If you have questions for Paul contact him at lgoering@umd.edu, tweet him @aglawPaul or 301-405-3541.

Harken back to the good old days of four weeks ago, when the worst thing going on was Gil v. Whiteford getting dismissed on standing issues and Brett's Netflix being mildly frustrating.  Brett and Nazim (full of youthful vigor) discuss the state of gerrymandering lawsuits going forward, and add in the case of United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, which dismissed a courtroom shackles case on account of mootness.  Law starts at (07:43).

On this episode of Court Appointed Mike and Tommy discuss the 22nd Amendment and why it may be of interest these days.  Just for good measure, let's throw in a dash of 12th Amendment and enjoy the "Interplay".  Whoa, that sounds smutty !! The Court is now in Session with music, "Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief" by MCRB.

It's been a while since we've gotten into the background of the Supreme Court, so this week, Brett and Nazim discuss the self-imposed scope of the Supreme Court's Power by way of a weird behind-the-scenes nuance of the San Francisco v. Sheehan case on police force.  Much like any powerful individuals with unfettered power, the Supreme Court has had a strange amount of discretion in the limits of what it can do under the Constitution and has defined its role in the government carefully.  By discussing judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, and standing, Brett and Nazim illustrate how they're basically a government institution with the same morals as Spiderman.

Introduction to courts and court systems.

Introduction to courts and court systems.