Podcasts about senior litigation counsel

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

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

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

Breaking News, 125 Days To Vote For The Government You Want, Day 270 Of The Israel Hamas War, AFLG Talks Latest SCOTUS Decisions, Dems Asking The President To Step Down, And Meta Accused Of Hiring Cheaper, Foreign Workers Over American Workers 6 Very Independent and Compelling Hours of Experts, And Authors Pursuing The Truth No Matter Where It Leads 9:06-9:29a ET- Rick Manning- Constitutionalists celebrated several of the latest Supreme Court decisions the 6-3 vote for presidential immunity and the Chevron decision. The President of Americans for Limited Government is talking about these and why the court failed to rein in deep state coercion and censorship. 9:32-9:42a ET- Jenny Beth Martin- President Biden's debate performance confirms he is unable to handle the demands of the presidency, making his re-election bid absurd. Meanwhile, some top Dems are asking that the president step down. The President and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots discusses. 9:46-9:58a ET- Eric Ruark- An appeals court ruled that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, must face a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the company favors hiring cheaper, foreign workers over American workers. The lawsuit could potentially represent 1000s of American workers who have lost out on jobs to foreign visa holders who are paid less. The Director of Research and Public Relations with NumbersUSA reports. 10:06-10:29a ET- Eric Buer- The Marine Lt Colonel has flown dozens of attack helicopter missions across Middle East hotspots. He is also the author of Ghosts of Baghdad, a true story that chronicles the Marine attack helicopter pilot's authentic and compelling firsthand account of the opening days and nights of the Iraq War. He joins us to talk about our country's Birthday and why it matters to us and the world. 10:32-10:42a ET- Charlotte Burrows- The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is a recent federal civil rights law which requires most employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations to their worker's known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship. The Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports. 10:46-10:58a ET- John Veccione- In Landmark Victory for Civil Liberties, NCLA Persuades Supreme Court to Overturn Chevron Deference. U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case and with it the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. NCLA's Senior Litigation Counsel has all the details.

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

This week, we're looking at how the internet is regulated in India. We consider what the current landscape looks like, what this means for tech platforms operating in the market and how this is impacting platforms' online counterterrorism and content moderation efforts.Join Anne Craanen as she speaks to Tanmay Singh, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Internet Freedom Foundation. And Jyoti Panday, a researcher at the Internet Governance Project (IGP) at the Georgia Institute of Technology.We unpack the recent legislation - the 2021 Information and Technology (IT) Rules - highlighting how they relate to global trends in regulating online content. Plus, we outline how civic engagement can influence online regulation. You can read a transcript of this episode here.If you want to find out more about Tech Against Terrorism and our work, visit techagainstterrorism.org or follow us on Twitter. To find out more about global online regulation, read our analysis in the Online Regulation Series.

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

A FOIA lawsuit asks: Why are unions entitled to postal customers' personal information, and what are they doing with it?If you go onto the United States Postal Service's website to buy some stamps (or order a ‘free' COVID test), when you go to check out, and enter all your personal information (name, address, telephone number, etc.), you may find some curious fine print in the USPS' Privacy Act Statement. [See screenshots below.]We do not disclose your information to third parties without your consent, except to act on your behalf or request, or as legally required. This includes the following limited circumstances: to a congressional office on your behalf; to agencies and entities to facilitate or resolve financial transactions; to a U.S. Postal Service auditor; for law enforcement purposes, to labor organizations as required by applicable law; incident to legal proceedings involving the Postal Service; to government agencies in connection with decisions as necessary; to agents or contractors when necessary to fulfill a business function or provide products and services to customers; and for customer service purposes. For more information regarding our privacy policies visit www.usps.com/privacypolicy. [Emphasis added.]Last year, Americans for Fair Treatment's Elisabeth Messenger came onto Labor Relations Radio and discussed a number of issues (episode here).Near the end of the episode, Ms. Messenger mentioned AFFT's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the U.S. Post Office seeking information. However, she did not go into great detail.Earlier this week, both the Daily Mail and Gateway Pundit ran stories about the AFFT lawsuit.In this episode of Labor Relations Radio, David R. Dorey, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Fairness Center, the law firm representing AFFT.Related: About the Fairness CenterDavid explains the background of the AFFT's lawsuit against the USPO, where it stands, as well as a number of interesting cases he and the Fairness Center are handling.Related:Daily Mail: US Postal Service is accused of sharing private information from 68 million households that applied for free Covid-19 tests with labor unions that could potentially be used for their political campaignsGateway Pundit: Lawsuit: Did the US Postal Service Share Private Customer Information With Unions?__________________________LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is a subscriber-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber here.

Share this episode of Labor Relations Radio with your colleagues.If you go onto the United States Postal Service's website to buy some stamps (or order a ‘free' COVID test), when you go to check out, and enter all your personal information (name, address, telephone number, etc.), you may find some curious fine print in the USPS' Privacy Act Statement. [See screenshots below.]We do not disclose your information to third parties without your consent, except to act on your behalf or request, or as legally required. This includes the following limited circumstances: to a congressional office on your behalf; to agencies and entities to facilitate or resolve financial transactions; to a U.S. Postal Service auditor; for law enforcement purposes, to labor organizations as required by applicable law; incident to legal proceedings involving the Postal Service; to government agencies in connection with decisions as necessary; to agents or contractors when necessary to fulfill a business function or provide products and services to customers; and for customer service purposes. For more information regarding our privacy policies visit www.usps.com/privacypolicy. [Emphasis added.]Last year, Americans for Fair Treatment's Elisabeth Messenger came onto Labor Relations Radio and discussed a number of issues (episode here). Near the end of the episode, Ms. Messenger mentioned AFFT's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the U.S. Post Office seeking information. However, she did not go into great detail. Earlier this week, both the Daily Mail and Gateway Pundit ran stories about the AFFT lawsuit.In this episode of Labor Relations Radio, David R. Dorey, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Fairness Center, the law firm representing AFFT. * Related: About the Fairness CenterDavid explains the background of the AFFT's lawsuit against the USPO, where it stands, as well as a number of interesting cases he and the Fairness Center are handling.Related:* Daily Mail: US Postal Service is accused of sharing private information from 68 million households that applied for free Covid-19 tests with labor unions that could potentially be used for their political campaigns* Gateway Pundit: Lawsuit: Did the US Postal Service Share Private Customer Information With Unions?* ICE employees say agency canceled their union but still collected dues* Labor Relations Radio, Ep 49—AFFT's Elisabeth Messenger on Union Pension Bailouts, Public Sector Unions and More* Labor Relations Radio, Ep. 19: Guest—The Fairness Center's Nathan McGrath On Janus, the Allentown Symphony & MoreYou can find prior episodes of Labor Relations Radio here.LaborUnionNews.com and Labor Relations Radio is a subscriber-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Get full access to LaborUnionNews.com's News Digest at laborunionnews.substack.com/subscribe

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.

Special Guest Julie A. Werner-SimonMs. Julie A. Werner-Simon is often referred to by her colleagues by the acronym “JAWS”– her initials.  In response to the historic overturn of Roe v. Wade, Ms. Werner-Simon leads the Overground Reproductive Law Project (ORLP), aka the “Harriet Project”, with Los Angeles Women Lawyers (WLALA) and the Southwestern Law School Women Law Student group. Their focus is to assist lawyers from Reproductive Access Yes (R.A.Y.) states who wish to provide reproductive assistance to women in “No-choice” states. Ms. Werner-Simon served a federal prosecutor for almost 30 years in Los Angeles and Alaska. She has also served as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) and held positions as:  Deputy Chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Senior Litigation Counsel of White Collar Crimes. Before her federal career, she was an Assistant District Attorney (state prosecutor) in Alaska primarily prosecuting sex crime cases. Werner-Simon has been recognized as a crime-victim advocate and lectures here and abroad on the American legal system, constitutional history, and the importance of civic literacy and engagement in democracies.On these shores, Werner-Simon advises, and at times, mentors lawyers and others on messaging, strategy and persuasion. She is also a pro bono lawyer for the national organization Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) representing minors from Central America facing deportation proceedings in the U.S.  And through May 2020, Werner-Simon is a Post-JD (juris-doctorate) Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies at Southwestern Law School.

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.

Today on this podcast episode we talk about FREE BUT NOT FREE, post-conviction work. We are joined by Lindsay Herf, Executive Director of The AZ Justice Project, Karen Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel for the AZ Justice Project, and Chris Tapp, who served 20 years in prison in Idaho for a crime he did not commit (was ultimately fully exonerated). You can find their full biographies on the Academy for Justice's website.

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.

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.

Matthew Boswell was appointed Commissioner of Competition on March 5, 2019, for a five-year term. He first joined the Competition Bureau in January 2011 and served in various senior management positions throughout the organization, leading merger reviews and directing major investigations targeting criminal cartels, abuse of dominance and deceptive marketing practices. Before joining the Bureau, Mr. Boswell worked in a private practice in Toronto, served as Assistant Crown Attorney with the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, and was a Senior Litigation Counsel at the Ontario Securities Commission, where he primarily prosecuted securities fraud and related matters. Hear about competition and marketing rules every business should know. To learn more about creating an effective compliance program, visit http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h_04456.html Entrepreneurs are the backbone of Canada's economy. To support Canada's businesses, subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter. Want to stay up-to-date on the latest #entrepreneur podcasts and news? Subscribe to our bi-weekly newsletter

Today, we are excited to introduce to you another member of the cast in our new documentary film, “The Mind Polluters”, Mary McAllister. Mary is Senior Litigation Counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign. She is 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 has nearly three decades of experience as an attorney, as well as a passion for protecting the innocence of children. We are excited to share this informative sit down interview with Mary as she give us a well rounded perspective of the legalities involving children with the transgender movement. MENTIONS ON THE PROGRAM Video of Ohio Chamber www.theblaze.com/news/video-democ…ct-womens-sports www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1405661/download Parents Bill of Rights - Indiana content.govdelivery.com/attachments/I…%20Rights.pdf This program wouldn't be possible without the generous support of listeners like you. To learn more about "The Mind Polluters" or to share your support, visit: www.fearlessfeatures.org

Is the Chevron Doctrine Doomed: Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, speaks with host Richard Levick of LEVICK about the Chevron Doctrine --judicial deference given to administrative actions -- which courts have followed for nearly 40 years but now appears likely to be re-examined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout his 40-year career in private law practice in Washington, D.C., Richard Samp has specialized in appellate litigation with a focus on constitutional law and has participated directly in more than 200 cases before the High Court. NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger – author of Is Administrative Law Unlawful? - to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State.

In Cochran v. SEC the Fifth Circuit court of appeals sitting en banc opened the doors of federal district courts in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana to constitutional challenges to agency administrative law judges (ALJs) who enjoy multiple layers of protection from removal. This means that persons administratively charged by the SEC will no longer have to first endure years of pointless administrative proceedings before judges they claim are unconstitutional. By contrast, in six other circuits (Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eleventh, D.C. and Ninth), administrative agencies such as the SEC and FTC can instigate unconstitutional proceedings and evade judicial review by an Article III court for years on end. Defendants are thereby forced to settle or bankrupted before ever receiving meaningful judicial review.Cochran is not only a groundbreaking course-correction vindicating Americans' access to Article III courts for redress of their constitutional rights, but it creates a circuit split that may well prompt Supreme Court review. The Fifth Circuit, by a 9-7 vote (Haynes, Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham and Wilson) held that § 78y of the Exchange Act neither explicitly nor implicitly stripped jurisdiction from federal courts to hear this challenge.Judge Oldham, joined by Judges Smith, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt and Wilson, concurred separately in a remarkable opinion that set forth the origins of the administrative state in § 78y's transfer of power “far away from the three branches of government the Founders worked so hard to create, separate and balance … [a]nd … as far away from democracy and universal suffrage as possible.” They said that critical disjuncture has allowed “administrative agencies to operate in a separate, anti-constitutional, and anti-democratic space—free from pesky things like law and an increasingly diverse electorate.”Please join Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), who argued the en banc, and Gregory Garre, former U.S. Solicitor General and now partner at Latham & Watkins, who worked with another NCLA client in 2020 on a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court on this point, for a discussion of this landmark decision and the concurrence's open engagement with administrative power. Peggy and Greg will discuss how this structural constitutional question was litigated in district courts in California, Texas and the Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, what the Fifth Circuit got right that so many other circuits got wrong, and how this separation of powers question might reach the Supreme Court in the near future. Featuring: --Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance --Gregory Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra. One of the certified questions asks the Court to revisit the famed Chevron doctrine which has been subjected to much criticism since its implementation. The petitioners ask the Court whether Chevron allows the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates for hospital groups and whether 42 U.S.C. 1395I(t)(12) precludes the petitioners' suit. Rich Samp of the New Civil Liberties Alliance which filed an amicus brief in the litigation before the Court joins us to discuss the oral argument. Featuring: -- Richard A. Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance -- Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Student Member, Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group Executive Committee; 3L Student, Harvard Law School

Today we're finishing our interview with Mary McAlister, If you missed any of the previous three episodes I'd encourage you to go back and listen to those. Mary bring a unique perspective to our new documentary “The Mind Polluters” as she is Senior Litigation Counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign. She has been an advocate for children's rights, particularly protection from the harms of early sexualization and sexual exploitation. She has nearly three decades of experience as an attorney, as well as a passion for protecting the innocence of children. Dennis Prager Article www.dailysignal.com/2021/06/08/the-single-best-thing-americans-can-do-to-retake-america-schools/ Epoch Times Article: www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/largest-teachers-union-votes-to-help-members-fight-back-against-anti-crt-rhetoric_3886261.html This is a listener supported program. If you're enjoying these podcast and want to learn how you can help support this show visit www.fearlessfeatures.org Thank you for taking the journey with us as we share behind the scenes of our new documentary film, "The Mind Polluters". Learn how you can become a force multiplier for truth when you partner with us through our filmmaking ministry. www.themindpolluters.com

Today, we are excited to introduce to you another member of the cast in our new documentary film, “The Mind Polluters”, Mary McAllister. Mary is Senior Litigation Counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign. She is 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 has nearly three decades of experience as an attorney, as well as a passion for protecting the innocence of children. We are excited to share this informative sit down interview with Mary as she give us a well rounded perspective of the legalities involving children with the transgender movement. MENTIONS ON THE PROGRAM: https://www.wnd.com/2021/07/queer-creators-pushed-lgbt-agenda-kids-cartoons/ This program wouldn't be possible without the generous support of listeners like you. To learn more about "The Mind Polluters" or to share your support, visit: www.fearlessfeatures.org

Today, we are excited to introduce to you another member of the cast in our new documentary film, “The Mind Polluters”, Mary McAllister. Mary is Senior Litigation Counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign. She is 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 has nearly three decades of experience as an attorney, as well as a passion for protecting the innocence of children. We are excited to share this informative sit down interview with Mary as she give us a well rounded perspective of the legalities involving children with the transgender movement. MENTIONS ON THE PROGRAM: The Gender Unicorn PSA: https://youtu.be/MV_zXX54I_c Audrey Werner / AFA article: https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2021/06/transgender-ideology-coming-soon-to-a-school-near-you/ "In His Image" Movie: https://youtu.be/W3YKpnrzmqc This program wouldn't be possible without the generous support of listeners like you. To learn more about "The Mind Polluters" or to share your support, visit: www.fearlessfeatures.org

Today, we are excited to introduce to you another member of the cast in our new documentary film, “The Mind Polluters”, Mary McAllister. Mary is Senior Litigation Counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign. She is 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 has nearly three decades of experience as an attorney, as well as a passion for protecting the innocence of children. We are excited to share this informative sit down interview with Mary as she give us a well rounded perspective of the legalities involving children with the transgender movement. MENTIONS ON THE PROGRAM Video of Ohio Chamber https://www.theblaze.com/news/video-democrats-go-into-full-meltdown-mode-when-female-gop-rep-proposes-amendment-to-protect-womens-sports https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1405661/download Parents Bill of Rights - Indiana https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2021/06/23/file_attachments/1861340/Parents%20Bill%20of%20Rights.pdf This program wouldn't be possible without the generous support of listeners like you. To learn more about "The Mind Polluters" or to share your support, visit: www.fearlessfeatures.org

Listen in to the LEC's virtual Symposium on the Economics and Law of Pharmaceutical Regulation: Emerging Issues to hear a panel discussion on "Emerging State Interventions in Patent Settlements and Other Intellectual Property Matters Affecting Pharmaceuticals" featuring:  Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School David Reichenberg, Co-Chair, Antitrust, Cozen O'Connor Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Melissa Feeney Wasserman, Charles Tilford McCormick Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law   To watch the full video recording of the panel discussion, click here. 

Chris DeRose is the New York Times Bestselling author of "The Fighting Bunch," "Star Spangled Scandal," "The Presidents' War," "Congressman Lincoln," and "Founding Rivals." Chris was formerly Senior Litigation Counsel to the Arizona Attorney General, a Professor of Constitutional Law, and Clerk of the Superior Court for Maricopa County, leading a team of over 700 professionals in serving America's fourth largest county. ​He serves on the Board of Directors for the Abraham Lincoln Association and Board of Scholarly Advisors for President Lincoln's Cottage, a historic site in Washington DC. He is a member of the Mystery Writers of America. ​A native of Chicago, Chris lives in Phoenix with Dr. Hannah DeRose, his hero and wife, who is saving lives amid a pandemic, their baby Ben, and French bulldog, Le Chien. In August 1946, Newsweek reported from Athens, Tennessee, where veterans of World War II had won their final—and most unexpected—battle, dislodging a corrupt political machine after a six-hour firefight. Reporters described "tension growing" through a "hot, still day" and "300 armed special deputies brought in by Sheriff Pat Mansfield to 'guard' the ballot boxes." The scene sounded more like Germany or Japan than America: a voter shot for trying to cast a ballot; GI poll watchers arrested, assaulted and having to jump through glass to escape being held hostage.About the book: "Armed deputies took two ballot boxes to the jail for counting, refusing to permit GI observers." A small group of veterans—the fighting bunch—demanded a public count of the ballots and, when they were refused, opened fire. The full story of the battle—the only successful rebellion on U.S. soil since the Revolution—remained shrouded in mystery. Newsweek readers wanted to know the full story. But the GIs weren't interested in talking. In my new book, The Fighting Bunch, I can finally reveal the full story of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee. Some of these long-sought details appear in Newsweek for the first time—nearly 75 years later"https://www.newsweek.com/how-world-war-ii-vets-won-uss-only-successful-rebellion-since-1776-opinion-1539122www.patriotradionetwork.org

Chris DeRose is the New York Times Bestselling author of "The Fighting Bunch," "Star Spangled Scandal," "The Presidents' War," "Congressman Lincoln," and "Founding Rivals." Chris was formerly Senior Litigation Counsel to the Arizona Attorney General, a Professor of Constitutional Law, and Clerk of the Superior Court for Maricopa County, leading a team of over 700 professionals in serving America's fourth largest county. ​He serves on the Board of Directors for the Abraham Lincoln Association and Board of Scholarly Advisors for President Lincoln's Cottage, a historic site in Washington DC. He is a member of the Mystery Writers of America. ​A native of Chicago, Chris lives in Phoenix with Dr. Hannah DeRose, his hero and wife, who is saving lives amid a pandemic, their baby Ben, and French bulldog, Le Chien. In August 1946, Newsweek reported from Athens, Tennessee, where veterans of World War II had won their final—and most unexpected—battle, dislodging a corrupt political machine after a six-hour firefight. Reporters described "tension growing" through a "hot, still day" and "300 armed special deputies brought in by Sheriff Pat Mansfield to 'guard' the ballot boxes." The scene sounded more like Germany or Japan than America: a voter shot for trying to cast a ballot; GI poll watchers arrested, assaulted and having to jump through glass to escape being held hostage. About the book: "Armed deputies took two ballot boxes to the jail for counting, refusing to permit GI observers." A small group of veterans—the fighting bunch—demanded a public count of the ballots and, when they were refused, opened fire. The full story of the battle—the only successful rebellion on U.S. soil since the Revolution—remained shrouded in mystery. Newsweek readers wanted to know the full story. But the GIs weren't interested in talking. In my new book, The Fighting Bunch, I can finally reveal the full story of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee. Some of these long-sought details appear in Newsweek for the first time—nearly 75 years later" https://www.newsweek.com/how-world-war-ii-vets-won-uss-only-successful-rebellion-since-1776-opinion-1539122 www.patriotradionetwork.org --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/patriotmedia/support

Chris DeRose is the New York Times Bestselling author of "The Fighting Bunch," "Star Spangled Scandal," "The Presidents' War," "Congressman Lincoln," and "Founding Rivals." Chris was formerly Senior Litigation Counsel to the Arizona Attorney General, a Professor of Constitutional Law, and Clerk of the Superior Court for Maricopa County, leading a team of over 700 professionals in serving America's fourth largest county. ​He serves on the Board of Directors for the Abraham Lincoln Association and Board of Scholarly Advisors for President Lincoln's Cottage, a historic site in Washington DC. He is a member of the Mystery Writers of America. ​A native of Chicago, Chris lives in Phoenix with Dr. Hannah DeRose, his hero and wife, who is saving lives amid a pandemic, their baby Ben, and French bulldog, Le Chien. In August 1946, Newsweek reported from Athens, Tennessee, where veterans of World War II had won their final—and most unexpected—battle, dislodging a corrupt political machine after a six-hour firefight. Reporters described "tension growing" through a "hot, still day" and "300 armed special deputies brought in by Sheriff Pat Mansfield to 'guard' the ballot boxes." The scene sounded more like Germany or Japan than America: a voter shot for trying to cast a ballot; GI poll watchers arrested, assaulted and having to jump through glass to escape being held hostage.About the book: "Armed deputies took two ballot boxes to the jail for counting, refusing to permit GI observers." A small group of veterans—the fighting bunch—demanded a public count of the ballots and, when they were refused, opened fire. The full story of the battle—the only successful rebellion on U.S. soil since the Revolution—remained shrouded in mystery. Newsweek readers wanted to know the full story. But the GIs weren't interested in talking. In my new book, The Fighting Bunch, I can finally reveal the full story of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee. Some of these long-sought details appear in Newsweek for the first time—nearly 75 years later"https://www.newsweek.com/how-world-war-ii-vets-won-uss-only-successful-rebellion-since-1776-opinion-1539122www.patriotradionetwork.org

This week liberty-minded organizations Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute, as well as American investors and entrepreneurs Phillip Goldstein, Mark Cuban, and Nelson Obus, filed amicus briefs in support of NCLA's position that the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals should find federal jurisdiction for NCLA client Michelle Cochran's constitutional claim in the case of Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The briefs amici curiae urge the full court to protect the rights of citizens, like Ms. Cochran, to access federal courts when personal liberty is threatened by executive-branch action that violates essential separation-of-powers principles. Vech interviewed NCLA's Senior Litigation Counsel, Peggy Little, on the upcoming en banc hearing in our Cochran v. SEC. Later in the show, Mark and John discussed Judge Sullivan's oddly long opinion dismissing the case of Fmr. U.S. National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, post-pardon. Mark wrote extensively on the matter in his op-ed in Forbes.com earlier this year: https://nclalegal.org/2020/05/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris DeRose is the New York Times Bestselling author of "The Fighting Bunch," "Star Spangled Scandal," "The Presidents' War," "Congressman Lincoln," and "Founding Rivals." Link to "The Fighting Bunch" https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Bunch-Successful-Rebellion-Revolution-ebook/dp/B084M1Y65B/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=fighting+bunch&qid=1590284365&sr=8-1 Chris was formerly Senior Litigation Counsel to the Arizona Attorney General, a Professor of Constitutional Law, and Clerk of the Superior Court for Maricopa County, leading a team of over 700 professionals in serving America's fourth largest county. He serves on the Board of Directors for the Abraham Lincoln Association and Board of Scholarly Advisors for President Lincoln's Cottage, a historic site in Washington DC, and is a member of the Mystery Writers of America. A native of Chicago, Chris lives in Phoenix, with his wife, Hannah, a radiologist, their son, Ben, and French bulldog, Le Chien.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will soon hear a lawsuit on accelerated consideration brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance that aims to restore constitutional governance to the Commonwealth. The suit seeks to overturn the Civil Defense State of Emergency, which Gov. Charlie Baker declared under the Commonwealth’s Civil Defense Act, which has never before been invoked for a health emergency. Massachusetts does have a Public Health Act expressly designed to empower local authorities to control and prevent transmission of infectious diseases dangerous to public health.This case presents foundational due process questions. A hearing, which will take place on September 11, will ask the Supreme Judicial Court to declare that the Civil Defense Act does not confer any authority upon the Governor during a pandemic and to declare his orders null and void. This ruling would permit local boards of health to establish strategies befitting their communities.Featuring:-- Michael DeGrandis, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will soon hear a lawsuit on accelerated consideration brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance that aims to restore constitutional governance to the Commonwealth. The suit seeks to overturn the Civil Defense State of Emergency, which Gov. Charlie Baker declared under the Commonwealth’s Civil Defense Act, which has never before been invoked for a health emergency. Massachusetts does have a Public Health Act expressly designed to empower local authorities to control and prevent transmission of infectious diseases dangerous to public health.This case presents foundational due process questions. A hearing, which will take place on September 11, will ask the Supreme Judicial Court to declare that the Civil Defense Act does not confer any authority upon the Governor during a pandemic and to declare his orders null and void. This ruling would permit local boards of health to establish strategies befitting their communities.Featuring:-- Michael DeGrandis, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Few Americans know that when they settle a case with the SEC (or the CFTC which has a similar “rule”) that they will be forced to agree to a lifetime gag, a subject of much concern to Americans across the political and economic spectrum. Whether in small businesses or large, Americans charged by these powerful government agencies settle 98% of the cases brought against them, meaning that those defendants cannot question the strength or the merits of the government’s case against them—for life.For nearly 50 years the SEC has settled cases in this manner even though the “rule” that purports to authorize the practice was never lawfully enacted in 1972. Join us for a litigation update forum with Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), to discuss whether this practice violates First Amendment doctrines forbidding prior restraint, content-based restrictions on speech, unconstitutional conditions, or suppresses rights of petition, rights of the public to hear truthful speech and due process. Does this silencing of truthful speech immunize the agencies from examination and criticism by the very people best situated to level such criticism? Congress itself could not lawfully enact such a rule, and the teleforum will explore why an administrative agency is exercising powers that Congress does not have.Litigation and Regulatory Background and Disclosure: NCLA petitioned to amend the SEC’s gag rule in October of 2018, which led to a lively hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. NCLA similarly moved to amend the CFTC gag rule in July 2019. NCLA also represents Barry D. Romeril, former CFO of Xerox, who moved to set his gag aside in the Southern District.

Few Americans know that when they settle a case with the SEC (or the CFTC which has a similar “rule”) that they will be forced to agree to a lifetime gag, a subject of much concern to Americans across the political and economic spectrum. Whether in small businesses or large, Americans charged by these powerful government agencies settle 98% of the cases brought against them, meaning that those defendants cannot question the strength or the merits of the government’s case against them—for life.For nearly 50 years the SEC has settled cases in this manner even though the “rule” that purports to authorize the practice was never lawfully enacted in 1972. Join us for a litigation update forum with Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), to discuss whether this practice violates First Amendment doctrines forbidding prior restraint, content-based restrictions on speech, unconstitutional conditions, or suppresses rights of petition, rights of the public to hear truthful speech and due process. Does this silencing of truthful speech immunize the agencies from examination and criticism by the very people best situated to level such criticism? Congress itself could not lawfully enact such a rule, and the teleforum will explore why an administrative agency is exercising powers that Congress does not have.Litigation and Regulatory Background and Disclosure: NCLA petitioned to amend the SEC’s gag rule in October of 2018, which led to a lively hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. NCLA similarly moved to amend the CFTC gag rule in July 2019. NCLA also represents Barry D. Romeril, former CFO of Xerox, who moved to set his gag aside in the Southern District.

In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act preempts state common law claims for restoration damages for pollution also addressed by an EPA-directed cleanup plan. In this case, a Montana copper smelter polluted its neighbors’ properties for decades but has also spent $450 million to remediate this pollution under a plan negotiated with EPA. Believing Montana state law entitles them to more extensive restoration than the EPA plan provides, neighboring property owners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance, seeking restoration damages and other relief. Jonathan Wood and Corbin Barthold join us to discuss the oral argument in this case and its implications for CERCLA and property rights.In this special, extended analysis episode, we have two guests. The first voice you will hear is Corbin Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel at Washington Legal Foundation followed by Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act preempts state common law claims for restoration damages for pollution also addressed by an EPA-directed cleanup plan. In this case, a Montana copper smelter polluted its neighbors’ properties for decades but has also spent $450 million to remediate this pollution under a plan negotiated with EPA. Believing Montana state law entitles them to more extensive restoration than the EPA plan provides, neighboring property owners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance, seeking restoration damages and other relief. Jonathan Wood and Corbin Barthold join us to discuss the oral argument in this case and its implications for CERCLA and property rights.In this special, extended analysis episode, we have two guests. The first voice you will hear is Corbin Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel at Washington Legal Foundation followed by Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act preempts state common law claims for restoration damages for pollution also addressed by an EPA-directed cleanup plan. In this case, a Montana copper smelter polluted its neighbors’ properties for decades, but has also spent $450 million to remediate this pollution under a plan negotiated with EPA. Believing Montana state law entitles them to more extensive restoration than the EPA plan provides, neighboring property owners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance, seeking restoration damages and other relief. Jonathan Wood and Corbin Barthold join us to discuss the oral argument in this case and its implications for CERCLA and property rights.Featuring: -- Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation-- Corbin K. Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act preempts state common law claims for restoration damages for pollution also addressed by an EPA-directed cleanup plan. In this case, a Montana copper smelter polluted its neighbors’ properties for decades, but has also spent $450 million to remediate this pollution under a plan negotiated with EPA. Believing Montana state law entitles them to more extensive restoration than the EPA plan provides, neighboring property owners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance, seeking restoration damages and other relief. Jonathan Wood and Corbin Barthold join us to discuss the oral argument in this case and its implications for CERCLA and property rights.Featuring: -- Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation-- Corbin K. Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

On this episode of Finding your Frequency we talk scandals with Chris De Rose. Chris is a New York Times bestselling American author and former Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. He was formerly a law professor and Senior Litigation Counsel for the Arizona Attorney General. We discuse his first book, Founding Rivals: Madison vs. Monroe, the Bill of Rights, and the Election that Saved a Nation, was named by The Washington Post as one of the Best Political Books of 2011and by Human Events as a Top Ten American History Book to Read this Summer. Chris discusses his positions and reason for the interest. Do not miss this scandalous episode.

On April 23, 2019, just one week after argument, the Supreme Court decided Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, a case involving a circuit split regarding Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and whether it supports an inferred private right of action based on negligence or scienter. Emulex Corp. is a computer component seller that entered into a merger agreement with Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing. In the merger agreement, Avago offered to pay $8 per share, which reflected a premium of 26.4% on the price of Emulex stock the day before the merger was announced. Emulex filed with the Commission a public recommendation statement supporting the tender offer, recommending that Emulex shareholders tender their shares and noting that that Emulex shareholders would receive a premium on their stock. The statement also included a summary of a “fairness opinion” generated by Goldman Sachs, indicating its view that the tender offer was fair to shareholders. Omitted from the recommendation statement, however, was a one-page premium analysis by Goldman indicating that the takeover premium offered by Avago was actually below average, though within the normal range for mergers involving similar companies. The merger went forward, but thereafter Gary Varjabedian and other Emulex shareholders collectively brought suit against Emulex under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that omission of the premium analysis page rendered the recommendation statement materially misleading. Emulex moved to dismiss, arguing that the facts alleged by plaintiffs did not sufficiently support the scienter required under Section 14(e). The district court agreed and ruled for Emulex but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Although five other federal circuit courts of appeals had interpreted Section 14(e) to require scienter, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the better reading of the provision in light of its legislative history required merely a showing negligence and not scienter.The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on the negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer. During oral argument, however, the Justices questioned whether certiorari had properly been granted, as the courts below had not thoroughly considered whether Section 14(e) authorizes a private right of action at all. Indeed, just over one week after oral argument, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.

On April 23, 2019, just one week after argument, the Supreme Court decided Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, a case involving a circuit split regarding Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and whether it supports an inferred private right of action based on negligence or scienter. Emulex Corp. is a computer component seller that entered into a merger agreement with Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing. In the merger agreement, Avago offered to pay $8 per share, which reflected a premium of 26.4% on the price of Emulex stock the day before the merger was announced. Emulex filed with the Commission a public recommendation statement supporting the tender offer, recommending that Emulex shareholders tender their shares and noting that that Emulex shareholders would receive a premium on their stock. The statement also included a summary of a “fairness opinion” generated by Goldman Sachs, indicating its view that the tender offer was fair to shareholders. Omitted from the recommendation statement, however, was a one-page premium analysis by Goldman indicating that the takeover premium offered by Avago was actually below average, though within the normal range for mergers involving similar companies. The merger went forward, but thereafter Gary Varjabedian and other Emulex shareholders collectively brought suit against Emulex under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that omission of the premium analysis page rendered the recommendation statement materially misleading. Emulex moved to dismiss, arguing that the facts alleged by plaintiffs did not sufficiently support the scienter required under Section 14(e). The district court agreed and ruled for Emulex but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Although five other federal circuit courts of appeals had interpreted Section 14(e) to require scienter, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the better reading of the provision in light of its legislative history required merely a showing negligence and not scienter.The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on the negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer. During oral argument, however, the Justices questioned whether certiorari had properly been granted, as the courts below had not thoroughly considered whether Section 14(e) authorizes a private right of action at all. Indeed, just over one week after oral argument, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.

The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to attorneys from Minnesota, New York, and California, to fill the CLE credit known as Diversity/Elimination of Bias credit. CLE will only be applied for in these three states.There will be no charge for this event. Electronic Sign-in link: (CLICK HERE) CLE Materials: Link (CLICK HERE)Diversity CLE Teleforum 2018: Litigation For A Higher Cause Representing a client with religious or spiritual motivations can pose unique problems for attorneys in representing these clients. Problems might occur surrounding how the client wants the case to be handled, or how the attorney chooses to litigate the case. In dealing with clients and how to possibly resolve issues surrounding religion, the best source to discover what can and cannot be done is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). While each state can determine whether or not to adopt the MRPC, it serves as a baseline in determining the course of action if a dispute regarding the client's religion is involved.Important rules that might help to answer these questions could be Rule 1.3, 1.16, 2.1, and 8.4. For Rule 1.3 (Diligence), the attorney has the duty to act with diligence in representing the client and as stated by comment 1 of this rule act "despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer." The lawyer may also act with professional discretion in how the action is handled. Therefore, the attorney has some room to act in the best interest of the client if there is some issue surrounding religion or spirituality. Rule 1.16 (Declining Or Terminating Representation), the attorney can decline to take a prospective client's case or withdraw from the case if the client wants the attorney to break some law, the client wants to choose a course of action repugnant and is fundamentally disagreeable to the attorney. This rule also provides the ability for the attorney to refuse to help a prospective client if before the relationship occurs the attorney might be aware that a possible issue could arise due to the client's religious or spiritual beliefs. Rule 2.1 (Advisor), in performing their duties, an attorney can give other advice rather than legal, which can include moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the case. Here, the attorney has the ability to make the client aware of how their religious or spiritual obligations could affect the case, and whether pursuing those options would create the best outcome. Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) applies because it deals with professional misconduct and includes language that prohibits attorneys from discriminating on the basis of a number of factors including religion. The language referring to anti-discrimination is part g of the rule. Many states have not adopted this rule or have adopted the rule in part. But a violation of Rule 8.4 could result in a disciplinary action against the attorney. Featuring: Prof. James A. Sonne, Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law SchoolWalter Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice **Additional CLE Instructions:Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Monday, October 22.An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call. Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to attorneys from Minnesota, New York, and California, to fill the CLE credit known as Diversity/Elimination of Bias credit. CLE will only be applied for in these three states.There will be no charge for this event. Electronic Sign-in link: (CLICK HERE) CLE Materials: Link (CLICK HERE)Diversity CLE Teleforum 2018: Litigation For A Higher Cause Representing a client with religious or spiritual motivations can pose unique problems for attorneys in representing these clients. Problems might occur surrounding how the client wants the case to be handled, or how the attorney chooses to litigate the case. In dealing with clients and how to possibly resolve issues surrounding religion, the best source to discover what can and cannot be done is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). While each state can determine whether or not to adopt the MRPC, it serves as a baseline in determining the course of action if a dispute regarding the client's religion is involved.Important rules that might help to answer these questions could be Rule 1.3, 1.16, 2.1, and 8.4. For Rule 1.3 (Diligence), the attorney has the duty to act with diligence in representing the client and as stated by comment 1 of this rule act "despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer." The lawyer may also act with professional discretion in how the action is handled. Therefore, the attorney has some room to act in the best interest of the client if there is some issue surrounding religion or spirituality. Rule 1.16 (Declining Or Terminating Representation), the attorney can decline to take a prospective client's case or withdraw from the case if the client wants the attorney to break some law, the client wants to choose a course of action repugnant and is fundamentally disagreeable to the attorney. This rule also provides the ability for the attorney to refuse to help a prospective client if before the relationship occurs the attorney might be aware that a possible issue could arise due to the client's religious or spiritual beliefs. Rule 2.1 (Advisor), in performing their duties, an attorney can give other advice rather than legal, which can include moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the case. Here, the attorney has the ability to make the client aware of how their religious or spiritual obligations could affect the case, and whether pursuing those options would create the best outcome. Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) applies because it deals with professional misconduct and includes language that prohibits attorneys from discriminating on the basis of a number of factors including religion. The language referring to anti-discrimination is part g of the rule. Many states have not adopted this rule or have adopted the rule in part. But a violation of Rule 8.4 could result in a disciplinary action against the attorney. Featuring: Prof. James A. Sonne, Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law SchoolWalter Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice **Additional CLE Instructions:Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Monday, October 22.An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call. Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

Enjoy my interview with Peter S. Hennes – a lawyer with nearly 50 years of experience who treats each case like his first and only. He is the proud father of two highly successful Ivy League educated attorneys: David Hennes, Co-Chair of the Corporate Litigation Department at Ropes and Gray, an international corporate law firm, and Mark Hennes, Senior Litigation Counsel at Novartis. Peter Hennes, Esq. Bielory & Hennes 1410 Hooper Ave., Suite 2 Toms River, NJ 08753 Phone 732.255.6500 Highlights: 7:31 – I had never seen any college 10:35 – Referrals 11:58 – It was part of me 12:39 – You can't be afraid 25:04 – Look away sometimes 38:20 – Country lawyer 47:20 – It's a tough way to make a living sometimes 56:31 – Treat people right Honorable Mention: Tony Graziano, Sr., MAI, CRE CEO, Broker of Record, Appraiser NAI Atlantic Coast Realty 1415 Hooper Avenue, Suite 306 Toms River, NJ 08753 732.736.1300 http://www.naiglobal.com/members/nai-atlantic-coast-realty-toms-river Frank Louis, Esq. Louis & Russell, Attorneys at Law 1144 Hooper Avenue, Suite 212 Toms River, NJ 08753 732.349.0600 https://www.louisandrussell.com/ Lindsay Hood Paralegal at Bielory & Hennes, PC 1410 Hooper Avenue, Suite 2 Toms River, NJ 08753 732.255.6500 Simpson Thacher 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 212.455.2000 https://www.stblaw.com/ Ropes & Gray 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 212.596.9000 https://www.ropesgray.com/en Fried Frank 1 New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 212.859.8000 http://www.friedfrank.com/ Vocabulary: Chiropodist – podiatrist, specialized foot doctor Anneal – heat and cool in order to harden or toughen (usually metal or glass) Secondment – temporary transfer of a military officer or corporate manager, or in this case an attorney from a law firm to its corporate client. In this case, attorney Mark Hennes was embedded with Novartis – a temporary placement that turned permanent

In recent years, political and legal developments have put two successful civil rights movements in direct conflict with each other. In 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed a Constitutional right to gay marriage in its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Further, over the last several years, numerous state and local governments have continued to pass laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. During the same period, however, in its decision in Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court also affirmed the rights of shareholders in some corporations to avoid enforcement of laws that they claim contradict their religious beliefs. In addition, a number of states have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that could allow businesses to refuse to comply with gay rights ordinances on religious grounds. This event will address the legal and ethical implications of the conflict between reproductive and gay rights, on the one hand, and religious freedom, on the other, as it plays out in the commercial world. First, we will host a debate between Gregory Baylor, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Gregory Lipper, Partner, Clinton Brook & Peed; former Senior Litigation Counsel, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We will then hear a panel of academics and practitioners who will dig more deeply into the issues that arise when the newfound protections for gay rights collide with the reemerging movement for religious liberty.

In recent years, political and legal developments have put two successful civil rights movements in direct conflict with each other. In 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed a Constitutional right to gay marriage in its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Further, over the last several years, numerous state and local governments have continued to pass laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. During the same period, however, in its decision in Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court also affirmed the rights of shareholders in some corporations to avoid enforcement of laws that they claim contradict their religious beliefs. In addition, a number of states have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that could allow businesses to refuse to comply with gay rights ordinances on religious grounds. This event will address the legal and ethical implications of the conflict between reproductive and gay rights, on the one hand, and religious freedom, on the other, as it plays out in the commercial world. First, we will host a debate between Gregory Baylor, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Gregory Lipper, Partner, Clinton Brook & Peed; former Senior Litigation Counsel, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We will then hear a panel of academics and practitioners who will dig more deeply into the issues that arise when the newfound protections for gay rights collide with the reemerging movement for religious liberty.

In recent years, political and legal developments have put two successful civil rights movements in direct conflict with each other. In 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed a Constitutional right to gay marriage in its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Further, over the last several years, numerous state and local governments have continued to pass laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. During the same period, however, in its decision in Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court also affirmed the rights of shareholders in some corporations to avoid enforcement of laws that they claim contradict their religious beliefs. In addition, a number of states have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that could allow businesses to refuse to comply with gay rights ordinances on religious grounds. This event will address the legal and ethical implications of the conflict between reproductive and gay rights, on the one hand, and religious freedom, on the other, as it plays out in the commercial world. First, we will host a debate between Gregory Baylor, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Gregory Lipper, Partner, Clinton Brook & Peed; former Senior Litigation Counsel, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We will then hear a panel of academics and practitioners who will dig more deeply into the issues that arise when the newfound protections for gay rights collide with the reemerging movement for religious liberty.

In recent years, political and legal developments have put two successful civil rights movements in direct conflict with each other. In 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed a Constitutional right to gay marriage in its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Further, over the last several years, numerous state and local governments have continued to pass laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. During the same period, however, in its decision in Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court also affirmed the rights of shareholders in some corporations to avoid enforcement of laws that they claim contradict their religious beliefs. In addition, a number of states have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that could allow businesses to refuse to comply with gay rights ordinances on religious grounds. This event will address the legal and ethical implications of the conflict between reproductive and gay rights, on the one hand, and religious freedom, on the other, as it plays out in the commercial world. First, we will host a debate between Gregory Baylor, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Gregory Lipper, Partner, Clinton Brook & Peed; former Senior Litigation Counsel, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We will then hear a panel of academics and practitioners who will dig more deeply into the issues that arise when the newfound protections for gay rights collide with the reemerging movement for religious liberty.

On March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker. Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) alleging that, during gameplay on the Xbox 360 video game console, discs would come loose and get scratched by the internal components of the console, sustaining damage that then rendered them unplayable. The district court, deferring to an earlier denial of class certification entered by another district court dealing with a similar putative class, entered a stipulated dismissal and order striking class allegations. Despite the dismissal being the product of a stipulation--that is, an agreement by the parties--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the parties remained sufficiently adverse for the dismissal to constitute a final appealable order. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, concluded it had appellate jurisdiction over the case. Reaching the merits, that Court held that the district court had abused its discretion, and therefore reversed the stipulated dismissal and order striking class allegations, and remanded the case. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice. -- To discuss the case, we have Cory L. Andrews, who is Senior Litigation Counsel for Washington Legal Foundation.

On March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Microsoft v. Baker. The case involves a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc would come loose and scratch the internal components of the device, permanently damaging the Xbox. Since only .4% of Xbox consoles experienced this issue, the district court determined that "a class action suit could not be certified and individuals in the suit would have to come forward on their own." The named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the court overturned the lower court's decision and held that the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in removing the class action allegations. -- As Microsoft v. Baker comes before the Supreme Court, the major question is whether or not appellate courts have the jurisdiction to review a class action suit after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice. -- Featuring: Cory L. Andrews, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.

On Tuesday, November 1, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby. The defendant, Cori Rigsby, violated the seal requirement of the False Claims Act (FCA) by disclosing her complaint against State Farm before the defendant was served. Although Rigsby won her original case against State Farm under the FCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals immediately dismissed the case due to the procedural violation. The question the Supreme Court must answer is what standards should be used to determine whether a claim made under the False Claims Act should be dismissed because the complaining party violated the seal requirement? -- Featuring: Cory Andrews, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.

On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court decided DIRECTV v. Imburgia. This case involves a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV by various California customers. Among other things, the agreement between DIRECTV and its customers contained a waiver of any right by either party to undertake class arbitration, unless “the law of your state” made such waivers unenforceable. At that time class arbitration waivers were unenforceable under California law, but in a subsequent case the United States Supreme Court held that this California rule was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Concluding that the parties had intended to apply the rule as it existed prior to the Supreme Court decision, California trial and appellate courts refused to enforce the arbitration provision. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the FAA permitted this outcome; namely, the application of state law that had since been preempted by the FAA. -- By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeals and remanded the case. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that the arbitration provision must be enforced because the California appellate court’s interpretation was preempted by the FAA. -- Justice Breyer’s opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, who is Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.

On October 6, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in DIRECTV v. Imburgia. This case involves a class action lawsuit which argues that DIRECTV improperly charged early termination fees to its customers. The question is whether the California Court of Appeal erred by holding that a reference to state law in an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act requires the application of state law preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. -- To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, who is Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.

What effect has the economy had on in-house counsel's role, specifically with regard to managing electronically stored information? In this edition of the ESI Report, Kelly Kubacki, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent fills in for Gina Jytyla and welcomes Everett Upshaw, Senior Litigation Counsel with Nokia and Lisa Spinelli, Legal Consultant for Kroll Ontrack, to discuss the expansion of corporate counsel's roles and responsibilities as a result of economic pressure and the need to streamline existing processes. In the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Gina and Kelly will take a look at the discovery order issued in Lake v. City of Phoenix.

I spoke with authors Shawnna Childress, an Associate Director of Navigant Consulting and co-founder of Women in eDiscovery, and Allison Brecher, the Senior Litigation Counsel and Director of Information Management and Strategy at Marsh & McLennan Companies, about the publication of their new book, eDiscovery Plain & Simple: A Plain English Crash Course in E-Discovery (Author House, June 25, 2009), which reflects on the duo's vast experience . Written from a multi-disciplinary perspective with graphic supplements, the book is meant to aid lawyers realizing that as Brecher noted in our conversation, "All discovery is e-discovery."

I spoke with authors Shawnna Childress, an Associate Director of Navigant Consulting and co-founder of Women in eDiscovery, and Allison Brecher, the Senior Litigation Counsel and Director of Information Management and Strategy at Marsh & McLennan Companies, about the publication of their new book, eDiscovery Plain & Simple: A Plain English Crash Course in E-Discovery (Author House, June 25, 2009), which reflects on the duo's vast experience . Written from a multi-disciplinary perspective with graphic supplements, the book is meant to aid lawyers realizing that as Brecher noted in our conversation, "All discovery is e-discovery."

I spoke with authors Shawnna Childress, an Associate Director of Navigant Consulting and co-founder of Women in eDiscovery, and Allison Brecher, the Senior Litigation Counsel and Director of Information Management and Strategy at Marsh & McLennan Companies, about the publication of their new book, eDiscovery Plain & Simple: A Plain English Crash Course in E-Discovery (Author House, June 25, 2009), which reflects on the duo's vast experience . Written from a multi-disciplinary perspective with graphic supplements, the book is meant to aid lawyers realizing that as Brecher noted in our conversation, "All discovery is e-discovery."

Did you want to know how corporations can arm themselves with the knowledge and tools to be prepared for dealing with electronic discovery before litigation commences? In this edition of The ESI Report, host Michele Lange, Attorney and Director of Legal Technologies at Kroll Ontrack, opens the ESI Buzz with experts, Patrick Oot, Director of Electronic Discovery and Senior Litigation Counsel at Verizon in Washington and Chris Wall, Manager with Kroll Ontrack's Legal Technologies Consulting Group, to discuss this exciting topic. In the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Gina Jytyla and Joni Shogren, Kroll Ontrack Staff Attorneys, focus on the facts surrounding Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp. Don't miss it!