Podcast appearances and mentions of seth waxman

Find links to all the following stories as well as other law and legal-adjacent stories at esq.social Links. On this day in history August 29, 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed by congress – the first piece of federal legislation aimed at civil rights since reconstruction.Prompted by the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which ignited public debate on school desegregation, the act aimed to address the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the Southern United States. President Dwight D. Eisenhower initially proposed the bill to bolster federal protection for African American voting rights, a pressing issue given that only about 20% of black people were registered to vote by 1957.However, the act faced considerable opposition in Congress, particularly from Southern Democrats who were engaged in a campaign of "massive resistance" against desegregation and civil rights reforms. Amendments like the Anderson–Aiken and O'Mahoney jury trial amendments were successful in diluting the act's potency. Senator Strom Thurmond notably conducted the longest one-person filibuster in Senate history in an attempt to block the legislation.Despite these setbacks, the act did pass, albeit in a watered-down form orchestrated by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson. While the act had a limited immediate impact on African American voter participation due to the removal of stringent voting protection clauses, it laid important groundwork for future civil rights legislation. It established the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, both of which would play crucial roles in the enforcement of civil rights laws.The act also set the stage for more robust civil rights legislation in the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. These later acts would build upon the foundation laid by the 1957 act, offering more comprehensive protections against discrimination and disenfranchisement. Overall, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a pivotal, if imperfect, step in the long journey toward civil rights and equality in America.The Biden administration has targeted 10 prescription drugs for price negotiations under Medicare, aiming to cut their costs by half on average by 2026. This move is part of Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law a year ago to address the high cost of medicines in the U.S. Among the drugs targeted are Eliquis, a blood thinner by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, and AstraZeneca's Farxiga, which treats diabetes and heart failure. These drugs alone accounted for significant spending, with Eliquis costing Medicare $16 billion in the year through May 2023.Previously, the U.S. government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices due to a 2003 law that created Medicare's Part D program. However, the Inflation Reduction Act has mandated these negotiations. The drugs selected for this round of negotiations account for nearly $51 billion, or about 20% of Part D's prescription drug costs. Around 9 million people on Medicare took these drugs and paid $3.4 billion out-of-pocket last year.Pharmaceutical companies have criticized the move, arguing that it threatens innovation and intellectual property rights. Johnson & Johnson, which has two drugs on the list, stated that the policies put an "artificial deadline on innovation." The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) also warned that giving the government the power to set prices could have "significant negative consequences."The drug industry is currently suing to block these negotiations, and companies like Merck, Bristol, J&J, and AstraZeneca have each filed lawsuits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also seeking an injunction to halt the negotiations. Analysts project a manageable impact on industry revenue, estimating as much as a 5% hit. However, the government expects that the price negotiations will save Medicare $100 billion through 2031.Bristol, Lilly Blockbusters Targeted for Medicare Price Cuts (1)US names first 10 drugs for Medicare price negotiation | ReutersU.S. states are increasingly focusing on "opportunity transparency" to address pay gaps, requiring companies to be more transparent about promotion opportunities. Illinois and Colorado have enacted laws that will take effect in 2025 and next year, respectively, mandating employers to disclose information about promotions. New Jersey also has pending legislation on this issue. These efforts build on pay disclosure laws initiated in Colorado in 2021 and later adopted by states like Washington, New York, California, and Hawaii. These laws primarily aim to address pay disparities affecting women and people of color.The new rules are designed to counter the "shoulder tap" practice, where employees are quietly selected for promotions, often without the knowledge of their co-workers. This lack of transparency disproportionately affects women and minorities. A 2022 study by McKinsey & Co. and LeanIn found that for every 100 men promoted from entry-level to manager positions, only 87 women and 82 women of color are promoted. This contributes to men holding nearly two-thirds of managerial roles despite making up only half of the workforce.Colorado's law imposes fines of up to $10,000 per violation and mandates changes in business practices. It requires companies to notify all employees of job openings and promotions in writing, giving them sufficient time to apply. Amendments to the law will further require businesses to notify employees about all job openings, not just promotions.The Illinois law, effective in 2025, will require companies to announce all potential promotions to their current employees within 14 days of posting a position externally. It will also require the disclosure of salary ranges and a summary of benefits in job ads. These laws aim to have a "cascading impact" on pay equity, complementing other policy efforts like banning employers from asking about applicants' prior salary history.States Put New Spin on Pay Gap Laws With Promotion TransparencyThe American Bar Association (ABA) is forming a new task force to explore the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the legal profession. This move comes as law firms increasingly experiment with AI tools like ChatGPT, while also confronting ethical and practical challenges posed by the technology. The ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence will be chaired by Lucy Thomson, a lawyer and cybersecurity engineer based in Washington, D.C. The group will include seven special advisors, such as former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman.The task force aims to assess how AI will affect the practice of law, probe ethical questions, and focus on issues like risk management, AI governance, and AI in legal education. ABA President Mary Smith emphasized the need to address both the "promise and the peril" of emerging technologies like AI. The initiative reflects a broader trend of growing interest in AI tools among legal professionals, including law schools considering the use of AI in applications and classrooms.By way of brief biographical background, Lucy Thomson, the group's chair, is the principal at a firm in Washington D.C., Livingston PLLC, that focuses on issues related to cyber security.Michael Chertoff was the co-author of the PATRIOT act, and former Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. Seth Waxman was Solicitor General of the United States from 1997 through 2001 and is frequently before the Supreme Court. The average age among the team is about 70, they're all lawyers, and none of them have any evident technical expertise.ABA taps prominent lawyers to tackle AI risks, opportunities | ReutersA U.S. District Judge, James Donato, is set to decertify a class-action lawsuit against Google involving 21 million consumers who claimed the tech giant violated federal antitrust laws through its Google Play app store. The decision could significantly reduce any damages that Google might owe for its distribution of Android mobile applications. The judge stated that his previous class certification order from November 2022 should be thrown out, as he decided not to allow an economist to testify as an expert witness for the consumers. This move eliminated an "essential element" of the consumers' argument for class certification. The class action had included consumers from 12 U.S. states and five territories, separate from a similar case brought by state attorneys general against Google.US judge set to decertify Google Play class action | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

In July 2020, the death penalty attracted national attention when the Trump Administration and the Department of Justice reinstituted federal executions for the first time in more than 17 years. Ultimately, the administration carried out an unprecedented 13 executions in six months. The death penalty continues to make headlines today amid several recent important developments. In this episode, WilmerHale podcast co-host and Partner http://auth.wilmerhale.com.verndale-prod.com/en/people/john-walsh (John Walsh) welcomes Partner http://auth.wilmerhale.com.verndale-prod.com/en/people/seth-waxman (Seth Waxman) and guest Professor https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10840/Steiker (Carol Steiker) for an in-depth discussion of the death penalty in America.  Waxman, who is the co-chair of WilmerHale's http://auth.wilmerhale.com.verndale-prod.com/en/solutions/appellate-and-supreme-court-litigation (Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice), served as Solicitor General of the United States from 1997 through January 2001. He is one of the country's foremost appellate advocates, including in death penalty cases. He has represented death row inmates over the course of 36 years while in private law practice, and has argued and won several death penalty cases in the US Supreme Court. Those victories include Roper v. Simmons, in which the Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. Most recently, Waxman was part of a team of WilmerHale lawyers who represented Wes Purkey, a federal inmate who was executed in July 2020.    Steiker is the Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the Harvard faculty sponsor of the Capital Punishment Clinic. She served as the faculty co-director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Policy Program from 2015–2020. A former law clerk for US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Professor Steiker focuses on criminal justice, with an emphasis on issues related to capital punishment. She is an author on death penalty matters, including the recent book Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment, which she co-authored with her brother Jordan Steiker, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.  Links: Carol Steiker's books, https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10840/Steiker (Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment) and Criminal Procedure Stories: An In-Depth Look at Leading Criminal Procedure Cases Charles L. Black, Jr.'s book, https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Punishment-Inevitability-Caprice-Mistake/dp/0393952894 (Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/725/608/57969/ (Jack Carlton House case) https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ (Death Penalty Information Center) (see page about https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race (Race and the death penalty)) https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/02/most-americans-favor-the-death-penalty-despite-concerns-about-its-administration/ (Most Americans Favor the Death Penalty Despite Concerns About Its Administration) (Pew Research Center) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55236260 (In Trump's final days, a rush of federal executions) (BBC) https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-pushes-boston-marathon-bomber-death-sentence-2021-06-15/ (Biden administration pushes for Boston Marathon bomber death sentence) (Reuters) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/17/south-carolina-law-death-row-inmates-firing-squad-electric-chair (South Carolina: new law makes inmates choose firing squad or electric chair) (The Guardian) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/garland-orders-halt-federal-executions-official/story?id=78621507 (Garland orders halt to any further federal executions) (ABC News)

The Supreme Court heard argument in the NCAA’s highly-anticipated antitrust appeal over student-athlete compensation on March 31. The court had tough questions for WilmerHale’s Seth Waxman, who represented the NCAA and attempted to defend the unique amateurism status of college sports against allegations of exploitation. On the other hand, the justices worried about the limits of a ruling for the students. Tillman Breckenridge, who filed an amicus brief supporting the students on behalf of African American Antitrust Lawyers, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap recent high court action, including a new grant in a case that both is and isn’t about abortion, as well as three unanimous decisions on water rights, media consolidation, and robocalls.

WilmerHale Partners Seth Waxman and Felicia Ellsworth talk with Lawrence Bacow, the 29th President of Harvard University, about the lawsuit filed by Harvard and MIT challenging the Trump administration's controversial directive to ban international students from the United States if they took most of their fall 2020 courses online. Waxman, Ellsworth and a team of lawyers represented the universities during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, ultimately filing a lawsuit challenging the directive in a mere 23 hours and obtaining a successful result. Links: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/10/metro/harvard-university-goes-virtual-wake-covid-19-outbreak/ (Harvard's decision to close the campus on March 10, 2020 and the impact on students, especially international students, faculty and scholars) (Boston Globe) https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/06/888026874/ice-foreign-students-must-leave-the-u-s-if-their-colleges-go-online-only-this-fa (ICE's July 6, 2020 directive) (NPR) https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-ices-reversal-and-re-reversal-online-class-policy-international-students (Summary of Reversal) (LawFare) https://www.harvard.edu/president/biography/ (Harvard President Lawrence Bacow's bio) https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/set (Seth Waxman's bio) https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/felicia-ellsworth (Felicia Ellsworth's bio)

This week we expect Biden will announce his selections for DOJ brass, including solicitor general, the executive branch's lawyer in the Supreme Court. In this special episode recorded last year at George Washington University, we go beyond the basics to discuss the role which has a huge importance in the development of constitutional law with Seth Waxman, the forty-first solicitor general serving under President Clinton from 1997 to 2001, Paul Clement, the forty third solicitor general who served under President George W. Bush from June 2005 until June 2008, and Don Verrilli, the forty-sixth solicitor general under President Obama, serving from June 2011 to June 2016

How does one prepare, and what is it like to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court? In this episode, Douglas Laycock, an experienced Supreme Court advocate himself, moderates an insightful conversation between two prominent Supreme Court appellate lawyers. Former Solicitor General Seth Waxman of WilmerHale and former Assistant to the Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown share their personal experiences as well as their unique insight into the nation’s highest court.

Seth Waxman, former federal prosecutor and Partner at Dickinson Wright, on the legal issues swirling around the Mueller report, reported to be filed as early as next week.  Chris Greiner, CFO of LivePerson, on how robots will increasingly answer corporate calls. Joe Mysak, Editor for Bloomberg Brief: Municipal Market, on the VRDO price-fixing lawsuits against major banks. Rob Waldner, Chief Strategist and Head of Multi-Sector Invesco Fixed Income, on bond markets and his 2019 outlook. Hosted by Abramowicz and Paul Sweeney. 

Within minutes on Tuesday two of President Trump’s closest confidants -- his former attorney Michael Cohen and the one-time chairman of his presidential campaign Paul Manafort -- became felons. What do you need to know to understand Cohen’s plea agreement and Manafort’s conviction? This week we’re joined by white collar ace and former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman to take a deeper look at what these watershed developments mean for the Trump administration.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General for the state of California, discusses the state's many legal challenges to President Trump's policies, focusing on immigration and climate issues. Plus, Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman discusses the latest updates in the bank and tax fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, where the jury has sent a note to Judge T.S. Ellis III saying they're deadlocked on at least one of the 18 counts against Manafort. They speak with Bloomberg's Peter Barnes and June Grasso. 

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General for the state of California, discusses the state's many legal challenges to President Trump's policies, focusing on immigration and climate issues. Plus, Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman discusses the latest updates in the bank and tax fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, where the jury has sent a note to Judge T.S. Ellis III saying they're deadlocked on at least one of the 18 counts against Manafort. They speak with Bloomberg's Peter Barnes and June Grasso.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman of Dickinson-Wright joins WGN Radio's Rich Lenkov and Tina Martini on Legal Face-Off to discuss the ongoing Manafort tria

How much legal trouble are Trump and his team in? A lot, according to Seth Waxman, former federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. He talks with Rick about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, what Don Jr. could be charged with, and the Paul Manafort trial. You can call in to the show to talk with Rick any time at (833) 711-RICK. That's (833) 711-7425.

Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman joins Rich and Tina to discuss the ongoing Manafort trial. Chicago Public Schools Inspector General Nicholas Schuler discusses the results of his new investigation into former CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett. Former Congressman Steve Israel joins the show to discuss the 3D guns controversy and his new book, “Big Guns.” Cook County Circuit Judge Ramon Ocasio III talks about his role as incoming President of the first Illinois Latino Judges Association. In the Legal Grab Bag, Tina and Rich are joined by Karla Mina from Market Overdrive and WGN Radio’s Kim Gordon to discuss breaking legal news involving the anti-violence protest on Lake Shore Drive, an unusual ‘catfishing’ claim, a new Prince lawsuit and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Mark Zuckerberg appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday for the first of two public hearings on Capitol Hill this week. The Facebook founder and CEO addressed issues regarding data security and privacy related to the harvesting of private information by Cambridge Analytica and Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election. Journalists and pundits were critical of the Senate Judiciary Committee from the very first question because it appeared the senators hadn't done their homework and were ignorant about some of the most basic aspects of Facebook. Steve Kovach, senior correspondent for Business Insider, says that let Zuckerberg get through the hearing virtually unscathed. Kovach breaks down the hearing with Michael and Rick and talks about what questions he'd like lawmakers to press Zuckerberg on. On Monday night, FBI agents raided the house, hotel room and office of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer. Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman weighs in on what the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller's team might learn from the raid.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced today that special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities with charges related to interference in the 2016 presidential election. The indictments confused some pundits and politicians on Capitol Hill because no Americans were charged. How does this relate to the allegations of collusion and obstruction of justice we associate with Mueller's investigation? Seth Waxman, a former federal prosecutor, talks about what the indictments say about the direction of the special counsel’s Russia investigation. Professor Robert Spitzer, chair of the Political Science department at SUNY Cortland, discusses the lessons we can learn about gun control from the infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago in 1927.

Farha v. United States, currently pending on a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a case study raising basic notions of due process, fair notice, the rule of lenity, mens rea, and whether administrative and civil remedies would be more appropriate. What began as a highly publicized raid by some 200 FBI agents on a Florida health care company over an accounting dispute ended in the indictment, conviction, and prison sentences for the Wellcare executives for fraud. -- On appeal, where the case was captioned Clay v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the convictions over the objections of the defendants that the jury instruction impermissibly allowed the jury to convict if the defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to the law’s requirement as opposed to finding a “knowing” violation as the statute requires. The Supreme Court in 2011, in Global-Tech Appliances, a civil case involving patent infringement, held that "knowledge" cannot include "deliberate indifference" to show sufficient mens rea to establish infringement. Accordingly, the cert petition, filed by Seth Waxman of WilmerHale, seeks to have the Court rule that the jury instructions should require a higher mens rea standard, all the more so in a criminal case. -- This case is particularly important for all regulated industries, where there are numerous laws and complex regulations governing conduct subject to administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement. -- Featuring: Paul Kamenar, Washington, D.C. Public Policy Attorney and Senior Fellow, Administrative Conference of the U.S. and Jeff Lamken, Partner, MoloLamken. Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.