Podcast appearances and mentions of nestor davidson

A panel of government planning lawyers joined to podcast to share their experiences in local, state, and federal planning law. They shared their career paths along with what they do in their current positions. The panel included: Tina Axelrad, Zoning Administrator for the City and County of Denver, CO; Samuel Capasso, Community Infrastructure Resilience Branch Chief for FEMA; Nestor Davidson, Professor of Real Estate, Land Use and Property Law at Fordham University; Daniel Arking, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Detroit, MI; and Kimberly Mickelson, Chair for the Government Law Section of the State Bar of Texas. Host: Dan Bolin

A breaking-news emergencies podcast right after the oral arguments in the Biden Student Debt cases: Nebraska v. Biden and Dept of Education vs. Brown, joined by:Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program, and a nationally expert on presidential emergency powers. She wrote immediately after the Biden plan was announced for the Washington Post: “Biden Using Emergency Powers for Student Debt Relief? That's a Slippery Slope,” linked here.And we're joined by Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center.Jed explains his amicus brief (and essay proposing an "Emergency Question Doctrine" to limit the Major Question Doctrine), which Justice Kavanaugh mentioned in oral argument, linked here.Materials Mentioned in this Episode:Materials Mentioned in this Episode:Biden v. Nebraska Department of EducationDocket         Oral ArgumentDepartment of Education v. BrownDocketOral ArgumentBrief of Jed Handelsman Shugerman as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents. Linked here.Jed Shugerman, "Major Questions and an Emergency Question Doctrine: The Biden Student Debt Case Study of Pretextual Abuse of Emergency Powers." 2023. Linked here.Jed Shugerman, “The Biden Student Debt Plan is a Legal Mess,” The Atlantic, Sept. 2022. Linked here. Subscription required. Elizabeth Goitein, “The Alarming Scope of the President's Emergency Powers,” The Atlantic, January/February 2019.  Linked here. Subscription to the Atlantic required.West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). Linked here. Zephyr Teachout. Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2016).  Buy on Amazon. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). Linked here.Andrew Kent, Ethan J. Leib, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, “Faithful Execution and Article II, 132 Harvard Law Review 2111 (2019). Linked here.

Constitutional Law for NIMBYs? The guests discuss the National League of Cities' Principles of Home Rule for the 21st Century, which two of them (Nestor Davidson and Richard Schragger) helped draft and the third (David Schleicher) has criticized as "Constitutional Law for NIMBYs." Nestor Davison is the Walsh Professor of Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law and the Faculty Director of the Urban Law Center at Fordham Law School. Richard Schragger is the Bowen Professor of Law and Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law at UVA Law School. David Schleicher is Professor of Law at Yale Law School and host of the Digging a Hole podcast. In addition to the National League of Cities' Principles of Home Rule for the 21st Century, the papers at the heart of the conversation are Do Local Governments Really Have Too Much Power? (by Nestor and Richard) and Constitutional Law for NIMBYs (by David). Appendices: Nestor Davison: City-Wide Effects of New Housing Supply: Evidence From Moving Chains by Cristina Bratu, Oskari Harjunen, and Tuukka Saarimaa Supply Shock Versus Demand Shock: The Local Effects of New Housing in Low-Income Areas by Brian Asquith, Evan Mast, and Davin Reed Richard Schragger: The Last Black Man in San Francisco (movie) David Schleicher: Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation by Edward Glaeser and David Cutler State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States and the Nation by Alexander Hertel-Fernandez Greg Shill: Sky-High Vaccination Rates and Zero Taxes Make Dubai a Pandemic Boom Town (in The Wall Street Journal) Jeff Lin: I Changed My Mind About Rent Control by Jerusalem Demsas From Samurai to Skyscrapers: How Historical Lot Fragmentation Shapes Tokyo by Junichi Yamasaki, Kentaro Nakajima, and Kensuke Teshima Follow us on the web or on Twitter: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @greg_shill, @davidson_nestor, @RichSchragger, and @ProfSchleich, and check out David's hit podcast (with Samuel Moyn) Digging a Hole: The Legal Theory Podcast. Producer: Schuyler Pals. The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated.

On April 25, 2019, in Charlottesville, Virginia, Circuit Judge Richard Moore ruled that the statues of prominent Confederate figures Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are considered war memorials protected by state law. Back in 2017, Charlottesville was the site of a rally where white nationalists protested the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee. A clash between protesters and counter-protesters turned violent, resulting in the death of Heather Heyer, which sparked a national debate over these controversial statues. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Richard Schragger, professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and Nestor Davidson, faculty director of the Urban Law Center at Fordham University’s School of Law, to take a look at this recent ruling, the controversy over the removal of Confederate statues and what is next in this legal fight. Richard Schragger is the Perre Bowen Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, where he has taught for almost fifteen years. Nestor Davidson is the Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law and faculty director of the Urban Law Center at Fordham University’s School of Law. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

We live in a system where regulators make the rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before Administrative Law Judges. If the matter ever gets to court, courts generally defer to the agency on questions of law “and fact.” As a result, agencies know that their regulations are unlikely to face challenge and, if they are challenged, will likely be upheld. In this system, critics argue, the predictable result is more and more irrational regulations and enforcement actions. Arizona has first-of-its-kind legislation to “reverse” Chevron and to instruct courts to give no deference to agency decisions on questions of law. On a related note, Arizona also passed the Right to Earn a Living Act, creating a cause of action to challenge occupational licensing decisions under a heightened standard of review. Some contend that the result of this new law has been significant in that regulators are reviewing and improving rules, or repealing them outright, rather than face litigation. Could these measures serve as a model other states and the federal government in reducing the size and scope of, and otherwise improving the Administrative State?Prof. Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center, Fordham University School of LawProf. Chris Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law Prof. Miriam Seifter, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitModerator: Hon. Michael Scudder, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

We live in a system where regulators make the rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before Administrative Law Judges. If the matter ever gets to court, courts generally defer to the agency on questions of law “and fact.” As a result, agencies know that their regulations are unlikely to face challenge and, if they are challenged, will likely be upheld. In this system, critics argue, the predictable result is more and more irrational regulations and enforcement actions. Arizona has first-of-its-kind legislation to “reverse” Chevron and to instruct courts to give no deference to agency decisions on questions of law. On a related note, Arizona also passed the Right to Earn a Living Act, creating a cause of action to challenge occupational licensing decisions under a heightened standard of review. Some contend that the result of this new law has been significant in that regulators are reviewing and improving rules, or repealing them outright, rather than face litigation. Could these measures serve as a model other states and the federal government in reducing the size and scope of, and otherwise improving the Administrative State?Prof. Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center, Fordham University School of LawProf. Chris Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law Prof. Miriam Seifter, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitModerator: Hon. Michael Scudder, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Sanctuary cities, gun violence prevention, and LGBTQ equality are just a few examples of the potential importance of local lawmaking and how it can impact people’s lives for the better or worse. What state legislative trends should we be on the lookout for in 2018? And how can blue cities in red states push back against state preemption efforts that seek to block local progressive lawmaking? Join ACS for a briefing call with Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law, Faculty Director of the Urban Law Center at Fordham Law, and co-author of the ACS Issue Brief The Troubling Turn in State Preemption: The Assault on Progressive Cities and How Cities Can Respond, and Sam Munger, Director of Strategic Engagement and Senior Advisor at the State Innovation Exchange (SiX).

Home for the holidays, back in Oral Argument World Headquarters, with property, land use, and local government law scholar Nestor Davidson. We discuss the fascinating, important, and under-theorized world of the thousands of local “administrative states” that shape our everyday lives. This show’s links: Nestor Davidson’s faculty profile (http://www.fordham.edu/info/23127/nestor_m_davidson) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=479785) Oral Argument 23: Rex Sunstein (http://oralargument.org/23) (guest Ethan Leib) (discussing Nestor Davidson and Ethan Leib, Regleprudence – at OIRA and Beyond (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2442413)) Nestor Davidson, Localist Administrative Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2867595) N.Y. Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene (http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2014/Jun14/134opn14-Decision.pdf) Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13209939354817730536) Aaron Saiger, Local Government as a Choice of Agency Forum (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2802646) Carol Rose, Planning and Dealing: Piecemeal Land Controls as a Problem of Local Legitimacy (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2832&context=fss_papers) Special Guest: Nestor Davidson.

We dive into the legal nature of the regulatory state with Ethan Leib of Fordham Law School. In what sense is the making of regulatory policy, whether on the environment or on net neutrality, a legal process? Should regulatory agencies adhere to precedent or otherwise be bound by law-like doctrines? We learn about the White House’s influence over rulemaking through OIRA and question how OIRA should function and what legal principles should govern it. This show’s links: Ethan Leib’s faculty profile and articles This Week in Law 263: More Bodies on Blackacre, on which Joe and Christian were guests Nestor Davidson and Ethan Leib, Regleprudence - at OIRA and Beyond Mark Tushnet, Legislative and Executive Stare Decisis The nuclear option About OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and its resource page The major executive orders concerning federal regulation and the role of OIRA The repository of OIRA return letters Cass Sunstein, The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities Catherine Sharkey, State Farm 'with Teeth': Heightened Judicial Review in the Absence of Executive Oversight Julius Cohen, Towards Realism in Legisprudence and Legisprudence: Problems and Agenda Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law Carol Rose, New Models for Local Land Use Decisions Cass Sunstein’s memorandum for agency heads, Disclosure and Simplification as Regulatory Tools Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 Public comments on the Obama administration’s proposal to revise the basic regulatory executive order (including comments from Martha Nussbaum, Eric Posner, Gillian Metzler, Richard Revesz, Michael Livermore, and Peter Strauss) Ethan Leib and David Ponet, Fiduciary Representation and Deliberative Engagement with Children Evan Criddle, Fiduciary Administration: Rethinking Popular Representation in Agency Rulemaking Special Guest: Ethan Leib.

Fordham University professor of Law and Founder and Director of the Fordham Urban Law Center, Nestor Davidson discusses  the legal questions that arise as cities begin to grow.