Podcasts about senior litigation counsel

Day Break | Draining the Fraud Swamp: Trump, Vance & the Fight for Taxpayers --- 00:00 Monologue 19:15 – David A. Kallman, Senior Partner with Kallman Legal Group. Kallman discusses delays surrounding Air Force PFAS cleanup efforts and warnings issued by the state regarding contaminated foam found in waterways. He explains the legal and environmental concerns tied to PFAS exposure and cleanup responsibility. 28:13 – Missy Malone, My Pure Health. Malone discusses what she calls a “health revolution” tied to America's 250th anniversary celebration. The conversation focuses on personal wellness, metabolism, and encouraging healthier lifestyles through individualized approaches. Visit gruberhealth.com for more information. 38:28 - Monologue Featuring Ivey Gruber 47:22 – Jacob Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Huebert discusses a new lawsuit challenging Illinois' firearm identification law, arguing that the law violates constitutional protections tied to the Second Amendment. 57:36 – Marc Werner, CEO of GhostBed. Werner discusses the importance of quality sleep and how mattresses can impact recovery, pain, and overall wellness. He shares customer experiences and explains how GhostBed products are designed for comfort, cooling, and support—including options designed specifically for RV owners. Visit ghostbed.com/gruber and use promo code GRUBER to save. 1:06:35 – Torine Creppy, President of Safe Kids Worldwide, and Brian Sansoni, Senior Vice President at the American Cleaning Institute. Creppy and Sansoni discuss concerns surrounding the social media trend of “decanting” household cleaning products into decorative containers. They explain how improper storage can create serious poisoning and safety risks for children and families. 1:16:48 - Monologue 1:25:39 – Dr. Lawrence Pfaff, teacher, therapist, consultant, and author of Ready Set Change: Why Knowing What to Do Isn't Enough. Pfaff discusses why meaningful personal change often requires more than motivation or willpower, and explores practical approaches to long-term transformation and habit-building. 1:35:45 – James David Dickson, Michigan-based strategist, founder of the Make Politics Local Again movement, and host of the James Dickson Podcast. Dickson discusses controversy surrounding a major Senate race and broader concerns about outside political influence and “coastal elite” culture shaping politics in the Midwest. 1:44:41 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network. Gruber discusses ongoing cultural debates surrounding gender identity and comments on a recent transgender-related event in Boston, focusing on broader political and social conversations taking place nationwide. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... Episode 16 is live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/I4UA2LzQQUg

The Steve Gruber Show | Fraud Crackdown, Iran Showdown, and America's Comeback --- 00:00 - Monologue 18:54 – Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). Little discusses a major free speech victory that forced the State Department to end a censorship-related program. She explains the legal implications and what it means for First Amendment protections. 27:48 – Tom Simon, spokesperson for Home Title Lock and former FBI Special Agent with 26 years of experience. Simon breaks down a case involving a $1.5 million Burbank home stolen through real estate fraud. He explains how these schemes work and how homeowners can protect themselves. Visit HomeTitleLock.com and use promo code GRUBER to get started! 37:52 - Monologue Featuring Ivey Gruber 46:50 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network. Gruber discusses the growing debate over AI data centers and whether communities should support their expansion. The conversation also explores concerns about common sunscreen ingredients and alternative approaches to skin protection. 56:58 – Tracy Byrnes, author of Deduct Everything! and former television anchor. Byrnes discusses key tax strategies as Tax Day approaches. She shares practical tips on legal deductions, credits, and ways to reduce tax liability. 1:05:42 – Michael Chamberlain, Director of Protect the Public's Trust. Chamberlain discusses concerns surrounding the Surgeon General's push to address so-called “misinformation.” He explains the potential implications for free speech and government overreach. 1:15:51 - Monologue 1:24:38 – Eric Lupher, President of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. Lupher reflects on the organization's 110-year history and how public policy in Michigan has evolved over time. He highlights key changes and ongoing challenges facing the state. 1:34:38 – J.T. Young, author of Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America's Socialist Left. Young discusses his article “No Kings, Just Pawns” and broader themes of government power and political movements. He explains his perspective on current political dynamics. 1:43:29 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network. Gruber wraps up the show with discussion on recent space exploration milestones, including NASA's latest mission around the moon. The segment explores the future of space travel and whether people would choose to go to space themselves. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... The ninth episode is live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/OLbwSDIhfuA

The Steve Gruber Show | Foreign Money, Fake Movements, Real Consequences --- 00:00 - Monologue 19:10 – Kent Strang, Managing Director of Americans for Prosperity. Strang explains why he believes President Trump was right to suspend the Jones Act. He discusses how the move could impact shipping, energy costs, and supply chain efficiency. 27:57 – Joe Rieck, Vice President of Sales at Longevity. Rieck encourages listeners to take the first step toward better health with Longevity products. He highlights a limited-time offer, including a free pouch of Strawberry Longevity with purchase. 38:15 - Monologue Featuring Ivey Gruber  47:08 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network. Gruber discusses the possibility of sending U.S. troops to Iran and the importance of trusting presidential decision-making. The conversation also touches on COVID-era fraud and a bizarre heist involving 12 tons of Kit Kat bars. 57:21 – Eric Eggers, Vice President of Research at the Government Accountability Institute and co-host of The Drill Down. Eggers discusses concerns about potential insider trading tied to developments surrounding the Iran conflict. He explains why increased scrutiny and investigation may be necessary. 1:06:21 – Dr. Jennifer Sperry, veterinarian with Spot Pet Insurance. Dr. Sperry discusses whether pet owners should be concerned about bird flu affecting animals. She also shares practical spring and summer safety tips to help keep pets healthy. 1:16:32 - Monologue 1:25:28 – John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). Vecchione discusses a major legal victory against government involvement in social media censorship. He explains what the ruling means for free speech protections moving forward. 1:35:29 – Marc Goldwein, Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Goldwein outlines a new proposal to help shore up Social Security, including the idea of implementing a six-figure income cap. He discusses the potential economic impact and political feasibility. 1:44:06 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network. Gruber wraps up the show with commentary on the rising cost of sporting events and a story about a man selling his house to attend the World Cup. The segment also explores political protests and whether Hollywood can regain its cultural influence. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... The seventh and eighth episodes are live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/7r4XPsrY4bg

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Watson v. Republican National Committee, (March 23) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., (March 24) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.Noem v. Al Otro Lado, (March 24) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, (March 25) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.Abouammo v. United States, (March 30) - Proper Venue, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, (March 30) - Jurisdiction; Issue(s): Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.Pitchford v. Cain, (March 31) - Criminal Appellate Litigation; Issue(s): Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.Trump v. Barbara, (April 1) - Birthright Citizenship, Fourteenth Amendment; Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.Featuring:Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election ConfidenceHon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLPZac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General(Moderator) Oliver Dunford, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

In an unprecedented action, the SEC in July dismissed with prejudice a pending enforcement case concerning an alleged violation of a rule promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). In 2023, the SEC had charged the defendants (a mutual fund, its investment advisor, and independent directors of the fund) with violating its 2016 “liquidity rule,” which limits the percentage of assets investment companies may hold in "illiquid" investments. The independent directors argued that the ICA did not authorize the SEC to make rules concerning fund liquidity and that its decision to do so based on a protection of investors rationale was owed no deference under the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright.The district court ordered supplemental briefing on Loper Bright implications, but before the SEC filed its supplemental response, it dismissed the case against all defendants, citing “policy reasons”, without more explanation. Our panelists will discuss the numerous legal and policy issues and questions raised by this sequence of events. Featuring:Jan Folena, Partner and Co-Chair of Securities & Regulatory Enforcement, Stradley RononMargaret Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Michael Piwowar, Executive Vice President, Milken Institute Finance

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.Featuring:Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law GroupStephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLPJacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceRyan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas(Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

Some insight from U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, and now with the Upper Midwest Law Center as Senior Litigation Counsel. She joined Vineeta on The WCCO Morning News.

Some insight from U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, and now with the Upper Midwest Law Center as Senior Litigation Counsel. She joined Vineeta on The WCCO Morning News.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.Featuring:Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawZac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationProf. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of LawProf. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

Andrew Morris, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), joins Scot Bertram to discuss the high-stakes legal battle over emergency tariffs. Morris explains the NCLA amici brief submitted to the Supreme Court, arguing that the executive branch lacks the legal authority to impose these tariffs without congressional approval, and what this case could mean for the balance of power between the branches of government.  

6pm: Guest - John Vecchione - Attorney for Civil Liberites Alliance // Mr. Vecchione is a Senior Litigation Counsel for the non-profit New Civil Liberties Alliance representing clients against the Administrative State. // Crabbers sue US state of Washington over GPS surveillance of vessels // I Stand Corrected - Ask, Tell, Correct or Yell at John about anything // Curley, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this Maryland guy who was apparently accidentally sent to that prison in El Salvador. // Braves Sideline Reporter demonstrates excellent game while calling the game

3pm: Guest - John Vecchione - Attorney for Civil Liberites Alliance // Mr. Vecchione is a Senior Litigation Counsel for the non-profit New Civil Liberties Alliance representing clients against the Administrative State. // Crabbers sue US state of Washington over GPS surveillance of vessels // I Stand Corrected - Ask, Tell, Correct or Yell at John about anything // Curley, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this Maryland guy who was apparently accidentally sent to that prison in El Salvador. // Braves Sideline Reporter demonstrates excellent game while calling the game

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination...in conduct related to the practice of law" based on a long list of protected characteristics including "race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status".In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.Featuring:Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?FeaturingMr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPMs. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPMr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & ConnollyModerator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.Williams v. Washington, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.Garland v. VanDerStok, (October 8) -Second Amendment; Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.Lackey v. Stinnie, (October 8) -Civil Procedure; (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.Glossip v. Oklahoma, (October 9) -Criminal Law; (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, (October 15), -Immigration; Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.Medical Marijuana v. Horn, October 15 -Criminal Law; Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (October 16) -Environmental Law & Regulation; Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.Bufkin v. McDonough, (October 16) -Vetrans Affairs; Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule.Featuring:James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal FoundationJohn Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationMatthew Rice, Solicitor General, Tennessee Attorney General's OfficeZack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation(Moderator) Kirby T. West, Attorney, Institute of Justice

The regulatory landscape for Private Funds has changed dramatically over the past decade, culminating in the SEC’s recent Private Fund Advisers regulation, which was recently struck down by the Fifth Circuit. In the wake of this important court decision, what’s next? Will the SEC go back to the drawing board? Is more regulation even needed? What broader implications can we draw for the legal landscape and regulatory governance principles going forward?Featuring:David Blass, Partner, Simpson ThacherRuss Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Jennifer Choi, CEO, Institutional Limited Partners AssociationModerator: Lindsey Keljo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Head of Asset Management Group, SIFMA--To register, click the link above.

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions.In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

June 28, 2024 will be remembered as a historic day in U.S. Supreme Court history. The Court reversed its forty year old precedent in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a precedent that was the most important and most cited decision in all of administrative law. The Court's Chevron precedent established a forty year practice of broad judicial deference to federal agency's authority to interpret ambiguous statutes according to those agencies' own criteria. In its decision in a pair of cases concerning the regulation of activity on fishing boats falling under the purview of such a vague statute, Loper-Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, the Court established new grounds according to which courts, agencies, and Congress would act. To discuss this "sea-change" in the law, we're bringing you an exclusive, immediate mini-sode with one of the lawyers part of the team that prevailed, John Vecchione. Mr. Vecchione is a Senior Litigation Counsel for the non-profit New Civil Liberties Alliance representing clients against the Administrative State. He was previously President and CEO of the non-profit Cause of Action Institute, also advancing the constitutional order. He practiced at a number of D.C. area firms. He focuses his practice on strategic litigation in the federal district and appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Read more about John at https://nclalegal.org/personnel/john-j-vecchione/ Follow John at https://x.com/VecchTweets Learn more about the Relentless case: https://nclalegal.org/press_release/in-landmark-victory-for-civil-liberties-ncla-persuades-supreme-court-to-overturn-chevron-deference/

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown – “Wingman Wednesday,” June 26, 20244:38 pm: John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance joins the show for a conversation about the Supreme Court decision today that shot down lawsuits against the Biden administration over efforts to urge social media companies to remove alleged misinformation about Covid-19.5:38 pm: Author Jack Carr joins Rod and Greg today to discuss his latest book “Red Sky Mourning.”6:05 pm: Derek Brown, the GOP candidate for Attorney General following his victory in yesterday's primary election, joins Rod and Greg to discuss his win and what comes next in his campaign.

On May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo. In a 9-0 decision, the Court sided with the NRA, affirming the actions taken by New York Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo violated the First Amendment. The case, known as one of the two "jawboning" cases heard this term (along with Murthy v. Missouri) raised the question of whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy.Join us for a panel discussion breaking down and analyzing this case and what can be expected, especially in light of the fact Murthy has yet to be decided.Featuring:Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteRobert Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIREVera Eidelman, Staff Attorney, Speech, Technology, and Privacy Project, ACLUJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

Matt Swafford is Senior Litigation Counsel at Shelter Insurance Companies, where he manages litigation across the United States for Shelter and affiliated companies and provides general counsel to Shelter's claims branches. He practiced law in Kentucky for over ten years with a focus on insurance, business, and employment litigation, clerked for Justice Will T. Scott at the Supreme Court of Kentucky, and was a Staff Attorney for Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Barry Willett. At Northern Kentucky University – Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Matt graduated in the top ten percent of his class; was a member of the NKU Law Review's Editorial Board; and interned for William O. Bertelsman, Federal District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio. Matt is licensed to practice in both Kentucky and Ohio (inactive), holds the Institutes' Chartered Property Casualty Underwriting CPCU designation, and is pursuing a Master's Degree in Insurance Management at Columbia University in the City of New York. In this episode of the In The Know podcast, Chris Hampshire and Matt consider the pros and cons of litigative problem-solving in the insurance industry, how it differs from the law firm environment, and what the future of the industry may look like from a legal perspective.   Key Takeaways   Matt recalls how much he had to learn about insurance in the early days of his career. Transitioning from a law firm to in-house counsel at an insurance carrier. Appealing offerings from the Columbia Master's Degree in Insurance Management. The self-serving reason behind and benefits of Matt's CPCU designation. Networking opportunities that have resulted from Matt's CPCU designation. Key differences between a carrier and a law firm environment. Hallmarks of an effective outside counsel-carrier relationship. What Matt wishes other departments knew about the carrier legal group. Best practices to mitigate the impact of social inflation. Key takeaways from Matt's time working outside a traditional law firm. Addressing the talent gap in the insurance industry. A five-year look at the future of the industry. Matt's advice to his early career self.   Quotes “The thing I learned when I first started practicing [insurance defense] was how very little I knew about insurance.” “I really wanted a business background and felt like I needed it to move forward in an in-house role.” “Communication is number one. You want to keep open lines of communication and communicate often.” “I can see how these kinds of cases play out and still not be the one who is carrying the pressure and the weight of trying to reach a successful resolve.” “Sometimes law firms can be a very competitive, dog-eat-dog environment, and it's just not like that in-house.” “Learning how technology works in the insurance industry is going to be absolutely critical moving forward.”  

Trial by jury and fair court proceedings bound by constitutional restraint are bedrock principles of our federal government.  Imagine being charged with a crime by a federal agency except the agency handles the entire court proceedings with a judge on its payroll.  The Securities and Exchange Commission was created by a 1934 act in response to the Great Depression and Stock Market Crash of 1929.  In 2008, in response to the financial crisis, its powers were significantly expanded through the Dodd Frank Act.  Under that legislation, the SEC was allowed to have in-house court proceedings with administrative law judges it hires.  As such, prosecutorial, judicial, enforcement and punishment power is all held within a singular agency.  A current Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, is challenging that power.  Join our all-star student panel and our special guest, Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as we discuss this case, its ramifications and the caution George Washington gave us when he spoke against unfair quasi-courts.

In July of 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in Clarke v. CFTC, and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The case is one concerning the CFTC's revocation of its "no-action letter" concerning PredictIt Market. PredictIt Market is an online marketplace for people to trade contracts predicting important political events, started as a research tool by Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. Before going into operation, PredictIt sought a "no-action letter" from the CFTC to operate in the US without registering under the Commodity Exchange Act as a designated contract market, which the CFTC issued in 2014.However, in August 2022, the CFTC withdrew the letter and issued notice to PredictIt to cease operations within 6 months, which led to suit being filed by supporters of PredictIt. Questions included whether the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, whether the letter constituted "final action" on the part of the agency, and whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.Join us as a panel of experts discuss this interesting case.Featuring:Michael Edney, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPHon. David Mason, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Aristotle InternationalConnor Raso, Deputy General Counsel, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(Moderator) Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Dustin Olson is a pollster associated with American Pulse Research & Polling. He also hosts the Political Trade Secrets Podcast and works as a political strategist at Olson Strategies & Advertising. You can find him on Twitter at @DustinOlson. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Assemblymember Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, is a pragmatic businesswoman and former Mayor, who represents the 72nd Assembly District in the California Legislature, which includes Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods and Lake Forest. GUEST 3 OVERVIEW: Mr. Vecchione is a Senior Litigation Counsel for the non-profit New Civil Liberties Alliance representing clients pro-bono against the Administrative State. He was previously President and CEO of the non-profit Cause of Action Institute, also advancing the constitutional order.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (February 20) - Does the six-year statute of limitations to challenge an action by a federal agency begin to run when the agency issues the rule or when the plaintiff is actually injured?Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street, LLC (February 20) - Labor & Employment; Whether the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for the employment contracts of “workers engaged in interstate commerce” applies to any worker who is “actively engaged” in the interstate transportation of goods, or whether the worker's employer must also be in the “transportation industry.”Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (February 21) - Intellectual Property; Whether copyright plaintiffs can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before they filed their lawsuit.Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (February 21) - Environmental Law; (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency's federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (February 26) - First Amendment; (1) Whether the laws' content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws' individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (February 26) - First Amendment; Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.McIntosh v. United States (February 27) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. (February 27) - Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.Garland v. Cargill (February 28) - Second Amendment; Whether a “bump stock” – an attachment that transforms a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic, assault-style weapon – is a “machinegun,” which is generally prohibited under federal law.Coinbase v. Suski (February 28) - When an arbitration agreement tasks the arbitrator with deciding whether a dispute should be arbitrated, should courts or the arbitrator decide whether the agreement is narrowed by a later contract that does not address arbitration?Featuring: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawScott Dixler, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLPStephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent InstituteAllison R. Hayward, Independent AnalystJohn Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationModerator: Alexandra Gaiser, General Counsel, Strive

Peggy Little is Senior Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). SEC Denies NCLA Petition Against Agency's Illegal Gag Rule on Targets of Settled Enforcement Cases

In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will consider whether Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 case in which the Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, should be overturned.Both cases concern attempts of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to promulgate rules requiring industry-funded monitoring of Atlantic herring fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Regulated fisheries contended that the MSA does not allow the NMFS to create a program requiring the industry to pay for monitoring services. The NMFS does not contend there is an explicit grant of this power, but argues its interpretation of the statute is appropriate and due deference under the precedent of Chevron. Oral argument is set to be heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024. Join us for a courthouse steps oral argument webinar featuring John Vecchione, who argued the Relentless case in the lower court, where we will discuss and break down how oral argument went in both cases before the court.Featuring:John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On today's show, Liz Harrington discusses Trump's Fox News town hall in Iowa. Later, Peggy Little discusses the NCLA launching a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department. GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Liz Harrington is President Trump's spokeswoman. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Peggy Little is Senior Litigation Counsel for the NCLA.

What You Need to Know is that there is a dire need for due process in our country. Due process is a big subject with a big history, some of which has been taken over by the left. Going back to the Magna Carta, due process has been an integral aspect to a fair and functioning system of law and justice in Western Civilization. The crown jewel of America is our Constitution, rule of law, and underlying values, which grants things like due process and checks and balances. But right now, we're gutting it, as it is repeatedly denied to many Americans fully deserving. Nicholas Barry, Senior Litigation Counsel at America First Legal, joins Ed to discuss the West Shore School District case. AF Legal reached a settlement with the school district allowing for students to opt out of radical and invasive “Social Emotional Learning” curriculum. Nicholas and Ed also discuss the rights of parents and students to not be subjected to radical leftist and anti-Christian agendas. John Schlafly, co-author of the Schlafly Report, joins Ed to talk about this week's column: ‘GOP Should Reject Improper Ballot Initiatives.' John explains how ballot initiatives, which are a form of direct democracy, go against the founding principles of the American republic. Particularly in Ohio, abortion and marijuana were legalized under a recent ballot initiative thanks to billions of dollars of out-of-state money. Wrap Up: Let's all brush up on some historical documents this Thanksgiving! Go to The WallBuilders Thanksgiving page as well as the Great Hearts Institute page here for Presidential proclamations on Thanksgiving 1789 through the present. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

K.M. Bell, Senior Litigation Counsel at National Women's Law Center joins Megan Lynch and Tom Ackerman discussing the religious leaders being in a St. Louis court today to challenge the states abortion ban.

Join us as we introduce you to Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel with the Child and Parental Rights Campaign. Mary is a leading advocate for parental and First Amendment rights, and has fought tirelessly for these fundamental freedoms in all levels of federal and state courts. With a wealth of experience advocating for children's rights, Mary is particularly passionate about protecting children from the harms of early sexualization and exploitation. Follow the DYSPHORIA Facebook Page www.facebook.com/dysphoriadocumentaryfilm #dysphoriamovie MANY THANKS to Patriot Mobile for sponsoring the red carpet premiere of Dysphoria!! Visit www.patriotmobile.com/dysphoria use promo code DYSPHORIA for FREE activation. ************** Get your tickets to see DYSPHORIA in Nappanee, IN; Nov. 11th @6PM —> igfn.us/form/AfObSA or text TICKETS to 80888 Learn more about our films —> www.fearlessfeatures.org/films Subscribe to our newsletter and emails! —> www.fearlessfeatures.org/newsletter Donate a tax-deductible gift to Fearless Features. —> igfn.us/form/-yFw_w Shop the Fearless Store —> www.fearlessfeatures.org/shop Host a Screening of The Mind Polluters —> www.fearlessfeatures.org/tmpscreenings ************* SHOW NOTES ************* Los Angeles Unified School District Plans Weeklong Celebration of National Coming Out Day https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/10/03/los-angeles-unifiedschool-district-plans-weeklong-celebration-of-national-coming-out-day/ If The Left Ends Parent Rights, You Might Need A License To Raise Your Own Child https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/10/if-the-left-ends-parent-rights-youmight-need-a-license-to-raise-your-own-child/# Parents warned they may soon need a 'license' to raise their own children https://www.wnd.com/2021/11/parents-warned-may-soon-needlicense-raise-children/https://www.wnd.com/2021/11/parents-warnedmay-soon-need-license-raise-children/ Will Parents Someday Need a “License” to Raise Their Children? https://answersingenesis.org/family/will-parents-someday-needlicense-raise-children/ US Debt Clock https://www.usdebtclock.org/ Trans advocates add new gender identity: The eunuch https://wng.org/roundups/trans-advocates-add-new-gender-identitythe-eunuch-1666638882

School and kids are back in session, Unfortunately the Sexual Revolutionaries who have no problem sexualizing children are also back at it as well. In fact, they never took a break. We help you stand up to the radicals with the science and clear thinking to protect your kids. Give today to help us #resistpride and #protectchildren: https://bit.ly/3P400gY Alvin Lui is President of Courage Is A Habit. He moved his family from California to the mid-west only to find the same ideologies that ruined his old home are now spreading across the country. Courage Is A Habit is an organization that creates tools for parents and legislators so they are empowered to take action to protect the innocence of children in K-12. Tiffany Justice is a wife and mom of four school-aged children. In 2016 she stepped up to serve for 4 years on the School District of Indian River County, FL School Board. She believes that kids in public school deserve innovation and parents have the right to know the union interference and government bureaucracy that is keeping that innovation from happening in their children's district. Tracy Shannon is mother of 4 blessings and a grandmother. She has studied what she calls the “neo-morality movement” for 20 years. Tracy's family was profoundly impacted by the transgender movement many years ago when her husband "transitioned." Recently, Tracy has taken on Drag Queen Story Hours, exposing how libraries disregard their own policies allowing sex offenders to be held out as role models to toddlers and children in taxpayer funded public libraries. Tracy is the Texas Director for MassResistance, and contributed to programs across the nation that help parents push back against this programming. Atty. Mary McAlister is Senior Litigation Counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign, having advocated for parental rights and First Amendment rights at all levels of federal and state courts. She has been an advocate for children's rights, particularly protection from the harms of early sexualization and sexual exploitation. Mary received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to law school, Mary worked as a journalist in California. She has also worked overseeing complex environmental contamination litigation. Mary is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and in every federal Circuit Court of Appeals throughout the country. She has authored and co-authored numerous academic articles and white papers on the subject of gender identity, girls' body image, sexually explicit materials in public schools, child protection, and the family and civil society. She and her husband have two children. Courage Is A Habit: https://courageisahabit.org/ Child and Parental Rights Campaign: https://childparentrights.org/ Moms For Liberty website: https://www.momsforliberty.org/ Tracy Shannon's "MadMommaBear" blog: https://madmommabear.com Tiffany Justice's "Joyful Warrior" Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9muQQiOA9CjIzZPA_Az6sGTMcWqMyLIe Behind Closed Doors Part I https://files.courageisahabit.org/s/i5XJBdrbdKppJpf Stranger Danger https://files.courageisahabit.org/s/z2Gzcx8e4ANGMmC SEL Data Mining Opt Out https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s7mCRuyfNSy-pr9ecqfDkXJhhXfqHjSr/view Safety & Inclusion Express (Transgender Train): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ajhMoJa6tz01l-dEB50zm5OvSjhTfBxP/view K-12 Brainwashing Method https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wzwh... Protect Child Health Coalition: https://protectchildhealth.org/ Family Watch Intl Resources on Gender Ideology: https://familywatch.org/family-policy-resource-center/#PRC-gender Transgender Trend Resources for Parents: https://www.transgendertrend.com/resources-for-parents/ Texas Mass Resistance on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSbi0Hx34qa4c-KxaiDVec8_YaRTJ0tGf Texas Mass Resistance on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MassResistanceTEXAS/ Alvin Lui previously on The Dr J Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUBJJjsvpKU Tiffany Justice previously on The Dr J Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-YF-KQf_qM Tracy Shannon previously on The Dr J Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5tqBFdce6o Sign up for our weekly newsletter here: ruthinstitute.org/newsletter +

GUEST OVERVIEW: Mary McAlister, Esq. is Senior Litigation Counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. She's an experienced trial and appellate lawyer, having advocated for parental rights and First Amendment rights at all levels of federal and state courts. She has been an advocate for children's rights, particularly protection from the harms of early sexualization and sexual exploitation. She brings to this role nearly three decades of experience as an attorney, as well as a passion for protecting the innocence of children.

When Judge Pauline Newman helped create the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 to have exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, no one could've guessed the drama that would follow almost 40 years after she joined the court herself. In April, Gene Quinn broke the news on IPWatchdog about a complaint filed by the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit against Newman for being unable to effectively discharge the duties of her office.  Days later, Newman showed up and spoke at Fordham Law School's annual IP conference in New York in a way that completely undermined the foundation of that complaint.  Recently retired Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley sat right next to Newman and looked towards her with admiration and affection.  Even if Hollywood's writers weren't on strike, they couldn't have scripted it better.  However, recent media interviews with Newman revealed that those events were only the tip of the iceberg of this drama.  Newman only discovered something was afoot when the Chief Judge - along with two other Federal judges of a Special Committee formed to investigate Newman – confronted Newman with demands that she resign or take senior status.  “Just go quietly or we'll make your life miserable,” Newman was told. A short time later, 88-year old Federal Circuit Judge Alan Lourie showed up at Newman's Watergate (yes, that Watergate) apartment to also try to convince her to resign.  By that point, he told her, the Chief Judge already managed to convince the rest of their colleagues that Newman was “totally disabled physically, and mentally incompetent.”  When Lourie said he “had no reason to disbelieve” that, Newman signaled for Lourie - her Watergate complex neighbor and colleague for over 30 years on the court– to leave.  The news of the complaint and Newman's appearance at Fordham crushed the plan for Newman to “just go quietly.”  Since that time, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Michel and Rader have publicly sided with Newman.  Michel highlighted “the conflicted process” where “the Chief Judge and the Special Committee [ ] continuing to act as accuser, investigator, prosecutor, and judge” by requesting a request to transfer the investigation to another federal court of appeals. Yet, noticeably, all of judges on the Federal Circuit and most of her former clerks have remained silent and are avoiding getting publicly involved.  The one notable exception: Newman's former clerk Greg Dolin.  In his role as Senior Litigation Counsel at New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), he is leading the legal fight against ousting Newman from the Federal Circuit.  After Dolin filed a lawsuit in district court claiming that the Federal Circuit's efforts are unconstitutional and convinced Newman to take a cognitive test, both sides agreed to U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's call for mediation. On this episode, Eli talks to Greg shortly before that mediation is to take place in August with retired D.C. Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith.  They talk about how and why this drama got to this point, how Newman has been able to emotionally deal with the fallout, why this fight is important beyond the Federal Circuit, what a potential resolution might look like, whether Greg and Judge Newman are preparing for impeachment proceedings, and much more!

On today's show, John Vecchione discusses the Biden Administration asking appeal court to block order limiting its contacts with social media.  GUEST OVERVIEW: Mr. Vecchione is a Senior Litigation Counsel for the non-profit New Civil Liberties Alliance representing clients against the Administrative State. He was previously President and CEO of the non-profit Cause of Action Institute, also advancing the constitutional order. He practiced at a number of D.C. area firms, including the eponymous John J. Vecchione Law, PLLC. Mr. Vecchione focuses his practice on strategic litigation in the federal district and appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. He is an experienced trial and appellate advocate having tried cases and argued appeals across the country. 

On "EWTN News Nightly" tonight: Pope Francis underwent abdominal surgery in Rome. According to Vatican officials the surgery became necessary due to an incisional hernia. EWTN Vatican Bureau Chief, Andreas Thonhauser, joins to tell us more about the surgery. And in the 2024 contest for the White House, the number of candidates vying for the job is growing by the day almost. Mike Pence, Doug Burgum and Chris Christie among those now throwing their hats into the ring. Cofounder and president of Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan, joins to share what his biggest takeaway is and whether we are going to see a repeat of 2016 when we had such a massive field of candidates. Meanwhile, on the heels of the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, the threat of war between China and Taiwan continues to grow. Some believe war is exactly what China is preparing for, so US lawmakers are taking steps to get ready as well, just in case. Finally this evening, there are new developments in a story about 2 pro-lifers who were assaulted outside a Planned Parenthood business in Baltimore. No arrests have been made. Senior Litigation Counsel for ACLJ, Olivia Summers, is representing both pro-lifers who were assaulted and shares how her clients are doing health-wise. Don't miss out on the latest news and analysis from a Catholic perspective. Get EWTN News Nightly delivered to your email: https://ewtn.com/enn

How are we to understand scientific consensus? Who is authorized to speak on behalf of doctors and scientists as a whole, and how do those who present themselves as messengers of the majority reach their material findings? In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, these questions, and others like them, have important consequences for the future of American science and medicine. The complaint in Missouri v. Biden arises from the controversy surrounding the Great Barrington Declaration, a declaration written in October 2020 and authored by renowned epidemiologists criticizing contemporary, aggressive COVID-19 policies. Plaintiffs allege that the federal government coerced social media companies to silence opposing viewpoints under the pretense of halting “disinformation” and “misinformation” thereby violating the First Amendment.Hoeg v. Newsom is born of similar allegations at the state level. On September 30, 2022, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 2098 that purports to rein in “disinformation” and “misinformation” about the COVID-19 virus and vaccines. The Bill states that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” Plaintiffs – all physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California – allege that the Bill violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by interfering with their ability to freely communicate to patients and dissent from mainstream viewpoints in their professional capacity as trained doctors. Observers have noted that achieving scientific consensus on an emergent and politicized disease is very difficult. For example, the purported scientific consensus on masks, lockdowns, natural immunity, and various other COVID-related matters has remained in flux over the past three years. Some argue that government attempts to stifle debate are concerning and illustrate the purpose of the First Amendment.Jenin Younes is Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) and represents plaintiffs in both cases. Please join us as Jenin delivers updates on these cases and discusses the ongoing power struggle over the dissemination of medical information.Featuring:Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance[Moderator] Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Tonight on "EWTN News Nightly": Pope Francis has achieved a years-long mission, when he arrived in the war-torn country of South Sudan today. EWTN Vatican Bureau Chief, Andreas Thonhauser, joins to tell us more about the meaning of this apostolic trip. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken's diplomatic trip to China has been cancelled as a high-altitude Chinese balloon sails across the US. It's expected to be in US airspace for several days. And several Catholic high school students and a few parents are lawyering up after the students were kicked out of the National Air and Space Museum because of the pro-life message on their hats. Senior Litigation Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Olivia Summers, joins to share what the parents and students are telling her about what happened. An international group named after Satan will soon open its first abortion clinic in the United States. The Satanic Temple will provide Telehealth screenings and prescribe abortion pills for patients in New Mexico. Father Steve Grunow, CEO of Word on Fire Ministries, joins to share whether there is any sense to be made of this. Finally this evening, the video series 'Catholic Central' explores various aspects of Church doctrine, culture and history in short humorous episodes suitable for middle schoolers to adults. Father David Guffey joins to talk more about the show. Don't miss out on the latest news and analysis from a Catholic perspective. Get EWTN News Nightly delivered to your email: https://ewtn.com/enn

In one of its most significant separation of powers opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Humphrey's Executor v. United States 87 years ago, in which it held that President Roosevelt's authority to remove a commissioner that his predecessor nominated and the Senate confirmed to the Federal Trade Commission was not “illimitable” under the Constitution. The Court held that the President's discretion to remove the commissioner based on his differing policy views was bounded by the Federal Trade Commission Act's limitation on removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Humphrey's continues to have significant implications today, in cases like FTC v. Walmart (N.D. Ill.) where Walmart has argued that by virtue of Humphrey's, the “quintessentially executive law-enforcement power” that the FTC has under its authorizing statute is unconstitutional because its commissioners are not removable at will by the President. This teleforum will analyze the contemporary implications of Humphrey's and its continuing vitality in U.S. Supreme Court's administrative law jurisprudence.Featuring:--Gregory Dolin, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance--Daniel Z. Epstein, Director, Trust Ventures--Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation--Kimberly Wehle, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore Law School; Visiting Professor, Washington College of Law, American University--[Moderator] Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, the George Washington University Law School

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected. Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. The case is set to be argued on Nov 7, 2022. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the next day, November 8, 2022. Featuring:--Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On November 8, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway. Petitioner Robert Mallory, a Virginia resident, sued Virginia-based Norfolk Southern in sued in the Court of Common Pleas, the court of general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, claiming that exposure to carcinogens while working for the company caused him to develop colon cancer. According to his complaint, Mallory was exposed to harmful carcinogens while employed by Defendant in Ohio and Virginia between 1988 through 2005. He did not allege that he suffered any harmful occupational exposures in Pennsylvania but sued in Pennsylvania court on a theory that the court could exercise jurisdiction over the Virginia company because it had registered to do business in Pennsylvania.Under Pennsylvania law, a foreign corporation “may not do business in this Commonwealth until it registers” with the Department of State of the Commonwealth. State law further establishes that registration constitutes a sufficient basis for Pennsylvania courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over that foreign corporation. Norfolk Southern Railway objected to the exercise of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the exercise violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court agreed and held Pennsylvania's statutory scheme unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.The Supreme Court is to decide if a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Featuring: --John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.Associated Blog Post: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: Oral Argument Preview

Some employers were surprised by the en banc Fifth Circuit's December 2021 decision in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt that a supervisor for an offshore oil company who received approximately $1,000 per day for a total of over $200,000 annually was eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Act exempts from overtime pay workers “employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity,” and the oil company argued that a highly compensated supervisor like Mr. Hewitt qualifies for this “EAP” exemption. The en banc Fifth Circuit applied a Department of Labor regulation requiring EAP-exempt employees to have a fixed weekly salary to conclude that, notwithstanding high pay and supervisory duties, Mr. Hewitt was non-exempt because he was paid on a daily rather than weekly basis.However, that argument has not been accepted across the bench. Judge Jones dissented that the weekly salary rule is inapplicable for workers who satisfy a separate regulatory requirement for exempt “highly compensated employees” who make over $100,000 per year (now $107,432). Judge Wiener's dissent added that application of the weekly salary rule—which dates from 1940s—is illogical and unreasonable under the circumstances. DOL took no view on this case. Additionally, Helix Energy created an apparent split with the First and Second Circuits, and the Supreme Court granted on certiorari May 2, 2022. Oral argument took place October 12. If the Court upholds the decision, employers that relied on the First and Second Circuits may face significant retroactive liability. In this podcast, experts provide a litigation update on Helix Energy, what it is, what the possible outcomes may be, and the potential consequences of the same. Featuring:Dave Dorey, Senior Litigation Counsel, The Fairness CenterTimothy Taylor, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP[Moderator] Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Each month, a panel of experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases that will be covered are included below.Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether Harvard University is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by purportedly penalizing Asian American applicants. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether a university can reject race-neutral admissions without proving that such action would damage the student body or standard of education.Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Cochran (November 7) – Whether a federal district has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an SEC administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding based on an alleged constitutional defect regarding the removal of administrative law judges.Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm'n (November 7) – Whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders.Haaland v. Brackeen (November 9) – Equal protection clause; whether the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 violates the anti commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment.Featuring:-- Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig-- Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance-- Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation-- Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP-- Moderator: Amy Howe, Howe on the Court

The Constitution creates the federal judiciary in Article III, but did you know it does not actually give a specific number of Supreme Court Justices we are to have?  Throughout our country's history, we have fluctuated between 5-10 Justices, but have held steady at nine since 1869. The last few years have seen a renewed interest in “court-packing,” that is, expanding the number of Justices to change the ideological balance of the court.  Today we welcome new student panelist and “We The People Contest” winner Lindsey Larkin.  Join Lindsey, Tova, Cathy and our special guest, Constitutional expert John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as we continue our discussion on Article III of the United States Constitution.

A Hollywood depiction of the lives of fishermen tells a real life story about how Executive Branch overreach damages American families. Hear from two practitioners challenging the administrative state on these very regulations depicted in “Coda” and learn why telling clients' stories is critical to reform. Featuring:-- Eric Bolinder, Managing Policy Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation; Counsel, Cause of Action Institute-- John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance-- Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC

With the recent leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court suggesting the court may overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion, privacy experts are concerned about digital surveillance and digital privacy in a post-Roe world. Smartphone apps and internet search engines can track data and locations leaving a data footprint if someone is searching for reproductive healthcare or abortion care. We speak with Cynthia Conti-Cook, civil rights attorney and current Technology Fellow on the Ford Foundation's Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Justice team, and Yveka Pierre, Senior Litigation Counsel at If/When/How, about our digital privacy.

With the recent leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court suggesting the court may overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion, privacy experts are concerned about digital surveillance and digital privacy in a post-Roe world. Smartphone apps and internet search engines can track data and locations leaving a data footprint if someone is searching for reproductive healthcare or abortion care. We speak with Cynthia Conti-Cook, civil rights attorney and current Technology Fellow on the Ford Foundation's Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Justice team, and Yveka Pierre, Senior Litigation Counsel at If/When/How, about our digital privacy.

When Katina Thornock was a young associate, she was fortunate to have the mentorship of strong female shareholders. When nerves would creep in before a civil deposition, one, in particular, would say, “Don't let those old guys walk all over you. You know the material and you know the craft. Now, go do it.” Empowerment—that's what strong mentorship and honest feedback cultivates. It's the sacred charge of legal leaders around the world—to empower those who are less experienced and provide a support system that enables personal development. Katina takes that mission seriously as Vice President and Senior Litigation Counsel at Providence. It manifests in the stories she imparts to young attorneys, in the programs she implements that create safe spaces for young lawyers to fail and to learn, and in the work she puts into D&I initiatives. We discuss: How real honest feedback can enhance personal development How to expand the legal function in a high-growth company Seizing a seat at the business table Doing the work in DNI      Hear more stories by following Innovative Legal Leadership on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any podcast platform. Listening on a desktop & can't see the links? Just search for Innovative Legal Leadership in your favorite podcast player.