Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul D Clement

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024. The petition granted was "limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the Solicitor General in her brief for the United States as amicus curiae." From the Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae These cases concern laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate major social-media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter).  The relevant provisions of the laws differ in some respects, but both laws (1) restrict covered platforms' ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or arranging the user-generated content presented on their websites, and (2) require covered platforms to provide individualized explanations for certain forms of content moderation.  The questions presented are: Whether the laws' content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment. Whether the laws' individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment. Resources: Moody v. NetChoice, LLC docket NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton docket Institute for Free Speech NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice amicus brief Time Stamps: (00:00:00) Moody v. NetChoice, LLC Begins Henry Charles Whitaker, Counsel of Record, Florida Office of the Attorney General (00:00:55) Paul D. Clement, Counsel of Record for NetChoice, LLC  (01:43:00) Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (02:20:15) Henry Charles Whitaker Rebuttal (02:23:00) NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton BeginsPaul D. Clement, Counsel of Record for NetChoice, LLC (02:53:47) Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (03:03:37) Aaron Lloyd Nielson, Counsel of Record, Office of the Texas Attorney General (03:40:09) Paul D. Clement Rebuttal The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. Learn more on our website: www.ifs.org

Trying to sort out what originalism means in practice requires integrating insights from all levels of the legal system, from academicians (both legal and historical), lawyers (from private practice, public interest, business, and government), and the bench (both trial and appellate and both state and federal). In this Roundtable, participants representing many of those elements of the legal culture offer insights on the current state of originalism in legal practice. Is there an identifiable "legal culture" to which originalism can be applied? If so, what should lawyers be doing that they are not doing? What should academics be doing that they are not doing? What should judges be doing that they are not doing?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCHon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitHon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitProf. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolHon. Jason Miyares, Attorney General, Commonwealth of VirginiaHon. Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitOverflow: Chinese Room

ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.2(b) states: “A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.” The comment on the rule further explains: “Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not constitute approval of the client's views or activities.” These principles date back at least to John Adams’ defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre and have long been viewed as essential to the adversarial system.Increasingly, however, in the minds of some, these principles are better honored in the breach – at least in the case of the powerful. There are all kinds of representation that lawyers simply should refuse to undertake – ranging from the House of Representatives seeking to intervene to defend a previously enacted law, to GITMO detainees, to the Defense of Marriage Act, to tobacco companies, to oil companies, to gun manufacturers, to former President Trump – regardless of the legal merits of the matters at issue. Lawyers who undertake such representations, it is argued, should incur severe reputational and professional consequences, and other clients should punish firms that take on these matters by taking their business elsewhere, even if there is no direct conflict. To these minds such representation sends the wrong message about the role of law in society. At the same time, in the view of many of the proponents of these exceptions, it remains essential that lawyers continue to represent certain kinds of unpopular clients, such as defendants accused of violent crimes, without fear of adverse professional repercussions. To them that is fundamental to the proper role for lawyers in society.Can these two visions coexist? What is the proper role of the lawyer?Featuring:Ms. Lisa Blatt, Partner, Williams & Connolly; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor GeneralHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Former U.S. Solicitor General Mr. Kannon Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor GeneralHon. Seth Waxman, Partner, Wilmer Hale; U.S. Former Solicitor General Moderator: Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each year is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 remains subject to the detailed requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 when determining whether highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.Date                   Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 07 2022 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 10, 2022)Jan 25 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al.Jan 27 2022 | Letter of January 25, 2022 pertaining to the corporate discosure statement, received from counsel for the petiitoners.Feb 07 2022 | Letter of February 7, 2022 pertaining to amicus briefs, received from counsel for the petiitoners.Feb 09 2022 | Waiver of right of respondent Michael J. Hewitt to respond filed.Feb 09 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Texas Oil and Gas Association, Inc. and The American Petroleum Institute filed.Feb 10 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Independent Petroleum Association of America and Offshore Operators Committee filed.Feb 10 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Mississippi, et al. filed.Feb 16 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.Feb 18 2022 | Response Requested. (Due March 21, 2022)Mar 21 2022 | Brief of respondent Michael J. Hewitt in opposition filed.Apr 05 2022 | Reply of petitioners Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 06 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.Apr 25 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.May 02 2022 | Petition GRANTED.May 06 2022 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.May 26 2022 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jun 07 2022 | May 26, 2022 motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 8, 2022. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 31, 2022.Jun 14 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, October, 12, 2022.Jun 22 2022 | Record requested from the 5th Circuit.Jun 22 2022 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Jun 23 2022 | The record from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of Texas (Houston) has been electronically filed.Jul 08 2022 | Joint appendix filed (statement of cost filed.)Jul 08 2022 | Brief of petitioners Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. filed.Jul 13 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Independent Petroleum Association of America filed.Jul 15 2022 | Brief amici curiae of States of Mississippi, et al. filed.Jul 15 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Texas Oil and Gas Association, Inc., et al. filed.Jul 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.Jul 21 2022 | CIRCULATEDAug 31 2022 | Brief of respondent Michael J. Hewitt filed. (Distributed)Sep 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Massachusetts Nurses Association filed. (Distributed)Sep 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)Sep 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of National Nurses United filed. (Distributed)Sep 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)Sep 07 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Sep 28 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Sep 30 2022 | Reply of petitioners Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 12 2022 | Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va. For respondent: Edwin Sullivan, Houston, Tex.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Ed Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, chats with Paul D. Clement, 43rd Solicitor General of the United States, about Clement’s experience with religious liberty cases leading up to the 110th case he has argued before the US Supreme Court, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Ed Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, chats with Paul D. Clement, 43rd Solicitor General of the United States, about Clement's experience with religious liberty cases leading up to the 110th case he has argued before the US Supreme Court, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Source

Ed Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, chats with Paul D. Clement, 43rd Solicitor General of the United States, about Clement’s experience with religious liberty cases leading up to the 110th case he has argued before the US Supreme Court, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Source

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 ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the arbitration-specific requirement that the proponent of a contractual waiver defense prove prejudice violates the Supreme Court's instruction in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that lower courts must “place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts."Date Proceedings and OrdersAug 27 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 1, 2021)Sep 29 2021 | Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Law Professors.Oct 01 2021 | Brief of respondent Sundance, Inc. in opposition filed.Oct 15 2021 | Reply of petitioner Robyn Morgan filed.Oct 20 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.Nov 08 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/12/2021.Nov 15 2021 | Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Law Professors GRANTED.Nov 15 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Nov 30 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits filed.Nov 30 2021 | Application (21A215) to extend the time to file a reply brief on the merits to March 11, 2022, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.Dec 15 2021 | Application (21A215) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file the reply brief on the merits until March 11, 2022.Dec 15 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file respondent's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including February 4, 2022.Dec 29 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Sundance, Inc.Dec 30 2021 | Brief of petitioner Robyn Morgan filed.Dec 30 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Jan 05 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed.Jan 06 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The National Academy of Arbitrators filed.Jan 06 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.Jan 06 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Minnesota, Maryland, et al. filed.Jan 06 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed.Jan 18 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Robyn MorganJan 26 2022 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.Jan 28 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, March 21, 2022.Feb 04 2022 | Brief of respondent Sundance, Inc. filed.Feb 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.Feb 11 2022 | CIRCULATEDFeb 11 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Restaurant Law Center filed. (Distributed)Feb 11 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)Mar 11 2022 | Reply of petitioner Robyn Morgan filed. (Distributed)Mar 21 2022 | Argued. For petitioner: Karla A. Gilbride, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar Penneast Pipeline Co., exercising federal eminent domain authority under the Natural Gas Act, from suing the State of New Jersey to acquire state-owned property to construct a natural gas pipeline. The Supreme Court rejected New Jersey's arguments that the federal eminent domain power had not been properly delegated to PennEast, and even if the authorization were appropriate, the State's sovereign immunity precluded this federal court suit. The federal government has always had the supreme power to condemn state property,the Court ruled, and the tradition of delegating this power to build public infrastructure goes back to the days of the nation's founding. Penneast was represented by former Solicitor General, Paul Clement.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Barrett filed a dissent joined by Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Featuring: -- Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP -- Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

QUESTION PRESENTED:(1) Whether the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit properly exercised jurisdiction over this case.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 24 2020 | Application (19A836) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 3, 2020 to March 4, 2020, submitted to Justice Alito.Jan 27 2020 | Application (19A836) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until March 4, 2020.Feb 18 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 23, 2020)Mar 09 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC.Mar 20 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Marcellus Shale Coalition and Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association filed.Mar 20 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Industrial Energy Consumers of America filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Pennslvania Manufacturers' Association, et al. filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. filed.Mar 23 2020 | Waiver of New Jersey Conservation Foundation of right to respond not accepted for filing. (March 24, 2020)Mar 23 2020 | Waiver of right of respondent New Jersey Conservation Foundation to respond filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Consumer Energy Alliance filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry filed.Mar 23 2020 | Waiver of right of respondents State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al. to respond filed.Apr 01 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.Apr 13 2020 | Response Requested. (Due May 13, 2020)Apr 30 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 13, 2020 to June 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Apr 30 2020 | Response to motion from petitioner PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed.May 01 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including June 2, 2020, for all respondents.Jun 02 2020 | Brief of respondents State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al. in opposition filed.Jun 02 2020 | Waiver of right of respondent New Jersey Conservation Foundation to respond filed.Jun 03 2020 | Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed.Jun 09 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2020.Jun 09 2020 | Reply of petitioners PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed. (Distributed)Jun 29 2020 | The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.Dec 09 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Dec 23 2020 | Supplemental brief of respondents State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al. filed.Jan 07 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.Feb 03 2021 | Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Did the Court of Appeals properly exercise jurisdiction over this case? The case will be set for argument in the April 2021 argument session.Feb 05 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, PennEast Pipeline Company, LLCFeb 08 2021 | Joint motion to set the briefing schedule filed by the parties.Feb 10 2021 | Joint motion to set the briefing schedule GRANTED. Petitioner's brief on the merits will be filed on or before March 1, 2021. Respondents briefs on the merits will be filed on or before March 31, 2021. The reply brief will be filed in compliance with Rule 25.3.Feb 22 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, New Jersey Conservation FoundationMar 01 2021 | Brief of petitioner PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed.Mar 01 2021 | Joint appendix (two volumes) filed.Mar 04 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pennslvania Manufacturers' Association and the New Jersey Business & Industry Association filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Marcellus Shale Coalition and Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association filed.Mar 12 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 28, 2021.Mar 15 2021 | Record requested.Mar 30 2021 | CIRCULATEDMar 31 2021 | Brief of respondent New Jersey Conservation Foundation filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief of respondents New Jersey, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.Apr 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of State of Oregon, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed)Apr 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Council of State Governments, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 16 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioner PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed. (Distributed)Apr 28 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Counsel to the Attorney General, Trenton, N. J.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. Hon. Paul D. Clement offered the keynote address.Featuring:Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former Solicitor General of the United States; Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Distinguished‎ Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University Law CenterIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society*******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 March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. Hon. Paul D. Clement offered the keynote address.Featuring:Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former Solicitor General of the United States; Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Distinguished‎ Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University Law CenterIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers. IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: IF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU IS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE BASIS OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, CAN 12 U.S.C. §5491(c)(3) BE SEVERED FROM THE DODD-FRANK ACT? PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW ON THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by enforcing the terms of arbitration agreements in the employment, consumer and other contexts – including mandatory and class action waivers. The FAA encourages a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that most recognize as quicker and less expensive than courts. Some argue the benefits of arbitration are waning in the #MeToo era, with confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements. Students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale and other elite laws schools are pressuring Big Law to dump mandatory arbitration, while some large employers have publicly abandoned legally enforceable arbitration agreements. Yet, at least one study shows employees do as well or better in terms of win rate and recoveries in arbitration as opposed to the judiciary. First introduced after the Epic Systems decision, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 2749) would prohibit mandatory arbitration in employment disputes. What is the future of mandatory arbitration? Is ending mandatory arbitration for all employment claims an over-reaction? Will forcing disputes into the judiciary mean fewer disputes will be brought to resolution? What about non-disclosure provisions in arbitration agreements? Will fewer employment agreements require arbitration of employment claims in the future?Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former United States Solicitor General and Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Alexander J. S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniversityMr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLCMr. Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLPModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Ms. Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC

Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by enforcing the terms of arbitration agreements in the employment, consumer and other contexts – including mandatory and class action waivers. The FAA encourages a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that most recognize as quicker and less expensive than courts. Some argue the benefits of arbitration are waning in the #MeToo era, with confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements. Students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale and other elite laws schools are pressuring Big Law to dump mandatory arbitration, while some large employers have publicly abandoned legally enforceable arbitration agreements. Yet, at least one study shows employees do as well or better in terms of win rate and recoveries in arbitration as opposed to the judiciary. First introduced after the Epic Systems decision, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 2749) would prohibit mandatory arbitration in employment disputes. What is the future of mandatory arbitration? Is ending mandatory arbitration for all employment claims an over-reaction? Will forcing disputes into the judiciary mean fewer disputes will be brought to resolution? What about non-disclosure provisions in arbitration agreements? Will fewer employment agreements require arbitration of employment claims in the future?Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former United States Solicitor General and Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Alexander J. S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniversityMr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLCMr. Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLPModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Ms. Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC

In this episode, we spend time with Paul D. Clement, who served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008. Before his confirmation as Solicitor General, he served as Acting Solicitor General for nearly a year and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General for over three years. He has argued nearly 100 cases before the United States Supreme Court. The American Law Institute would like to thank Oyez for excerpted portions of Supreme Court oral arguments. This material is released under the Creative Commons license. Oyez is a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law. Listeners may learn more about Oyez or listen to full oral arguments online at oyez.org.

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The first panel discussed "How the Federal Government Litigates Cases."The Trump administration has not often reversed its litigation approach completely from that of the prior administration. But the Trump administration made headlines last year when it refused to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act against a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas. Some commentators argued that this was a significant violation of the Department of Justice's “duty to defend" duly enacted laws. Others noted that the “duty to defend" is a relatively recent creation stemming from an Office of Legal Counsel opinion letter in 1980 that is seldom followed and has little if any basis in the Constitution.Does the President have a constitutionally mandated duty to defend duly enacted laws or government action, if he believes they are unconstitutional? If so, are there limits on that duty—i.e., do government attorneys have any additional obligations as servants of the people to consider the long term implications of the arguments they make in defense of government action, or should they simply try to win like private advocates? On the other hand, if the president does not have an obligation to defend laws he finds unconstitutional, should that effect how the court views the standing of third parties intervening to defend challenged laws or government actions that the president elects not to defend? This panel will dive into how the government does and should argue cases.* * * * * 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:Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLPMr. Gene C. Schaerr, Scaherr Jaffe LLPModerator: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The first panel discussed "How the Federal Government Litigates Cases."The Trump administration has not often reversed its litigation approach completely from that of the prior administration. But the Trump administration made headlines last year when it refused to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act against a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas. Some commentators argued that this was a significant violation of the Department of Justice's “duty to defend" duly enacted laws. Others noted that the “duty to defend" is a relatively recent creation stemming from an Office of Legal Counsel opinion letter in 1980 that is seldom followed and has little if any basis in the Constitution.Does the President have a constitutionally mandated duty to defend duly enacted laws or government action, if he believes they are unconstitutional? If so, are there limits on that duty—i.e., do government attorneys have any additional obligations as servants of the people to consider the long term implications of the arguments they make in defense of government action, or should they simply try to win like private advocates? On the other hand, if the president does not have an obligation to defend laws he finds unconstitutional, should that effect how the court views the standing of third parties intervening to defend challenged laws or government actions that the president elects not to defend? This panel will dive into how the government does and should argue cases.* * * * * 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:Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLPMr. Gene C. Schaerr, Scaherr Jaffe LLPModerator: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice