Podcasts about seventh amendment

»

One California city has been quietly collecting $5,000-per-incident fines from short-term vacation rental owners. And if the regime is struck down, the city may owe half a million dollars back.Former constitutional law attorney David Koslow joins Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis to break down two Appellate Division challenges that expose a structural flaw in how cities administer and collect STVR fines, and why SEC v. Jarkesy may be the tool that finally pries these cases open.Key points:The $1,000 cap hiding in plain sight: Government Code §36901 sets a default $1,000 ceiling on city fines—but Cathedral City and several other Coachella Valley municipalities have been imposing $5,000 first-offense STVR penalties for years.Forfeiture swallowed the first case whole: In Montanaro v. City of Cathedral City, the pro per defendant said the fine was "draconian"—but never said "excessive fines clause." The Court of Appeal dismissed on forfeiture. “Draconian,” says the court, is not the same as “excessive.”

Historian Clay Jenkinson and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. On this installment, Clay and John examine the Seventh Amendment.

Historian Clay Jenkinson and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. On this installment, Clay and John examine the Seventh Amendment.

Historian Clay Jenkinson and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. On this installment, Clay and John examine the Seventh Amendment.

In FCC v. AT&T, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a jury trial is required before the FCC may collect penalties from regulated parties for apparent violations of communication laws and regulations. The Supreme Court found that the FCC's administrative process does not offend the Seventh Amendment jury right – over the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas. Join us for a webinar breaking down the ruling and its implications for other challenges to administrative enforcement regimes. Featuring: Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteJosh Robbins, Attorney, Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving forfeiture orders assessed against AT&T and Verizon for failing to safeguard customer location information. The FCC forfeiture orders totaled over $100 million in combined penalties.  In this 10-minute episode of Staying Connected, Tony Mangino is joined by LB3 partner Steve Rosen, to address a question that's been hanging over FCC enforcement proceedings for years. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Jarkesy, are the FCC's forfeiture orders consistent with the Seventh Amendment—can the Commission order you to pay millions of dollars without ever giving you a jury trial? If you would like to learn more about our experience in this space, please visit our Communications Regulatory Advice and Advocacy webpage. 

➔

After puzzling over an interesting follow-up question about Pitchford v. Cain, we unpack a summary vacatur in Whitton v. Dixon. We then spend a while breaking down the latest developments in Allen v. Milligan line, in which we discuss the future of the Purcell principle and whether the Court should be unusually attentive to public appearances in election cases. We finish with Sripetch v. Jarkesy, where the Court rejects a requirement that the SEC prove victims suffered pecuniary loss before seeking disgorgement, with specific attention to the interesting Seventh Amendment question raised in Justice Thomas's concurrence.Key Topics[00:03:23] - Listener question on Pitchford v. Cain, AEDPA, and procedural default[00:08:12] - Whitten v. Dixon: summary vacatur in a capital case and harmless-error review[00:12:44] - Justice Thomas's dissent and the critique of selective error correction[00:22:46] - Allen v. Milligan / Alabama redistricting and the stay of the lower court injunction[00:27:24] - The Court's restatement of Milligan and discussion of “colorblind constitution” language[00:32:30] - Purcell, election timing, and whether the doctrine is really about federal court intervention[00:41:20] - Merits and legitimacy concerns in election-law cases[00:53:27] - SEC v. Sripetch and the disgorgement remedy[00:58:42] - Justice Thomas's concurrence on disgorgement, equity, and the Seventh Amendment[01:03:36] - Broader implications for administrative law and jury-trial rights

This Day in Legal History: Congress Repeals the Gold ClauseOn this day in 1933, Congress passed the Joint Resolution that voided the gold clauses written into nearly every long-term contract and bond obligation in the United States, both public and private. The resolution declared that any provision purporting to require payment “in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency” was “against public policy,” and that obligations could be discharged dollar for dollar in whatever legal tender currency was in force at the time of payment. It was a remarkable act of legislative power: a one-paragraph statute that rewrote the payment terms of millions of existing contracts overnight, in the middle of the Great Depression, to make Franklin Roosevelt's recent abandonment of the gold standard actually stick. The Supreme Court took up the inevitable challenge two years later in the Gold Clause Cases — Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio, Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States — and in February 1935 it upheld the resolution as applied to private contracts by a 5-4 vote, while telling the United States, in Perry, that it had violated its own contractual word in repudiating gold-payment promises on government bonds, but that the bondholder had suffered no compensable injury. The doctrinal residue of that compromise is still with us: Congress can use its monetary powers to alter private contract terms retroactively when monetary policy requires it, the rule that has quietly underwritten every major monetary intervention since, from Bretton Woods to the post-2008 emergency lending programs. June 5 is not a day most lawyers mark on the calendar, but the resolution Congress passed on this date is one of the cleanest examples in American law of a legislature using its enumerated powers to dissolve a contract term that had been considered, until that moment, untouchable.The Supreme Court on Thursday handed Hikma Pharmaceuticals — and the entire generic drug industry — a 9-0 win in a case that had been hanging over the so-called “skinny label” pathway for years. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., held that Amarin, the maker of the brand-name fish-oil drug Vascepa, had not plausibly alleged that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin's patents covering a still-patented cardiovascular use of the drug. The skinny label is a feature of Hatch-Waxman generic-drug law that lets a generic manufacturer copy only the unpatented uses of a brand drug by literally carving the patented uses out of its FDA-approved label, which is supposed to let cheaper generics reach the market for the unpatented indications even while patents on other indications are still in force. Brand companies have been trying for years to sue around that carve-out under the active inducement statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by pointing to generic press releases, marketing language, or website descriptions and arguing that doctors could read those statements as encouragement to prescribe the generic for the still-patented use. The Federal Circuit had bought a version of that argument and revived Amarin's case. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, and the test that Justice Jackson articulated is meaningful: the question is not how doctors might interpret what a generic manufacturer said, but whether the manufacturer itself actively encouraged the infringing use. Neutral statements that could be read as instructions to infringe do not count. The practical effect is to shore up the skinny label pathway and make it harder for brand companies to weaponize induced infringement against generic competition. The decision was originally framed as a pharmaceutical-industry case, but its inducement standard will reach across patent law generally and into every industry where § 271(b) gets litigated.It's unanimous: SCOTUS agrees with Hikma in ‘skinny label' case vs. Amarin | Fierce PharmaAlso unanimous on Thursday: the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. SEC held that the Securities and Exchange Commission can obtain disgorgement of a wrongdoer's ill-gotten gains without having to prove that any individual investor lost money. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 9-0 Court, which is itself a small surprise given the Court's recent pattern of skepticism toward broad SEC remedial powers. The case came out of a penny-stock pump-and-dump scheme that Ongkaruck Sripetch ran across some 20 small companies — buy shares quietly, promote them aggressively, sell into the bubble — and the SEC won an order requiring him to disgorge roughly $3 million. Sripetch's argument on appeal was that disgorgement is supposed to be tied to investor harm, that the SEC had not shown specific pecuniary losses traceable to him, and that the order was therefore not the kind of equitable relief the Court approved in its 2020 Liu v. SEC decision. The Court disagreed, on traditional equity principles: disgorgement, the Court explained, is measured by the defendant's unjust gain, not the plaintiff's quantified loss, and equity has always been willing to strip a wrongdoer of profit even when the victim cannot mathematically prove harm. The practical importance for the SEC is enormous — the agency reports collecting roughly $1.4 billion in disgorgement in fiscal 2025 alone, and a contrary ruling would have forced the SEC into an evidentiary burden that pump-and-dump and insider-trading cases are notoriously bad at supplying. The opinion is also a reminder that the Court's recent administrative-state skepticism is not all in one direction: when the question is grounded in old equity doctrine, the same justices who narrowed SEC adjudication in Jarkesy are willing to leave the agency's remedial toolkit intact.US Supreme Court Backs SEC in Fight Over ‘Disgorgement' Power | US NewsThe third and most constitutionally significant of Thursday's rulings was FCC v. AT&T, in which the Supreme Court upheld 8-1 the Federal Communications Commission's longstanding practice of imposing forfeiture penalties on regulated carriers through its own in-house process, without first giving the carrier a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter. The case grew out of the FCC's headline-making fines against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint for selling access to real-time customer location data to third parties without consent — fines that ran nearly $200 million across the four carriers, with AT&T's portion at $57 million and Verizon's at $46.9 million. The carriers challenged the fines on Seventh Amendment grounds, arguing that the Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy — which struck down the SEC's in-house adjudication of securities-fraud penalties as a violation of the jury-trial right — should reach FCC forfeitures too. The Court said no, on a structural distinction that matters: an FCC forfeiture order is not self-executing. The FCC cannot collect on its own. If a carrier refuses to pay, the matter is referred to the Justice Department, which then has to file a civil action in federal district court — a proceeding in which the carrier is entitled to a full jury trial and the government has to prove the violation de novo, with no deference to the FCC's findings. That collection-stage jury trial, Roberts wrote, is enough to satisfy the Seventh Amendment, even though the agency itself first issues the penalty. Justice Thomas's dissent argued the in-house process is no less coercive than the SEC adjudication the Court rejected in Jarkesy and would have extended Jarkesy here. The practical takeaway: agency in-house penalty proceedings survive after Jarkesy if there is a real, downstream jury-trial backstop. Expect every regulator with a similar two-step enforcement structure to point to this opinion the next time someone tries to push Jarkesy further.Court rules against cell service providers over right to jury trial in FCC proceedings | SCOTUSblog This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this video, we break down the latest SCOTUS oral arguments in FCC v. AT&T & Verizon. The Court appeared hesitant to extend Seventh Amendment jury trial protections to massive FCC penalties, following the Jarkesy decision.Big telecom companies face over $100 million in fines for alleged privacy violations — without a jury trial. Will the Supreme Court side with the FCC or strengthen constitutional safeguards? A major ruling on administrative law and due process is expected this summer. Perfect for anyone following SCOTUS, constitutional law, or telecom news.Today's video is sponsored by M&P Coax - save 10% with code HR2CABLES here - https://geni.us/uyU8Hy4Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ham-radio-2-0--2042782/support.

The NBA is changing, and Rooster and House are here to explain why the era of the three-megastar "super team" might finally be over. They discuss how the league's new apron system is rewarding teams that prioritize depth and chemistry over top-heavy rosters, using the current Knicks and the young powerhouses in the West as Exhibit A. The conversation shifts from the hardwood to the legal arena, where the guys break down a massive victory for the Seventh Amendment. Brian Flores' successful push for a jury trial against the NFL is a game-changer that could send shockwaves through professional sports front offices. They provide the kind of "insider" legal analysis you can only get from a room full of lawyers, explaining why the NFL is suddenly very eager to keep its internal emails out of the public eye.   To round things out, House introduces a brand-new segment, "Things About Which House Wants to Riff," starting with a comprehensive look at how rule changes have transformed the NFL, MLB, and NHL. From the "passing league" evolution that protects quarterbacks to the absolute success of the MLB pitch clock, they weigh in on what's saving the games and what's making them unrecognizable. It's a fast-paced episode that blends high-level sports analysis with critical legal and structural insights you won't want to miss.

Administrative Law: Whether the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. - Argued: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 10:45:57 EDT

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.Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

FCC v. AT&T | 04/21/26 | Docket #: 25-406 25-406 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. AT&T DECISION BELOW: 149 F.4th 491 CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-567 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq ., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-60223

Bison and House hold down the fort this week, starting with a toast to Arthur Green, a 109-year-old veteran who has been an Orioles fan since before they left St. Louis. Then it's Region 3 of the SMQB Best Sports Competition bracket! Listen in to find out why Bison is exacting "revenge" for the Indy 500 by pushing the Daytona 500 through, and how the NCAA Final Four remains a powerhouse seed. The guys also preview the USMNT's upcoming matches and the final qualifying spots for the World Cup, involving a high-stakes showdown between Sweden and Poland.   In the legal corner, the discussion centers on your right to a jury trial. Bison and House break down why the Brian Flores case is a win for the Seventh Amendment and a "fatal flaw" for the NFL's unilateral control over disputes. Whether you're a lawyer or just a fan of the game, you'll want to hear how these "forced arbitration" clauses in your credit card and cell phone contracts are finally being challenged in the sports world.

Episode 281-Don’t be a Dingus about the Dingus Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 281 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun law, accidental discharge, Fifth Amendment rights, criminal charges, licensing revocation, public health safety, misdemeanor offense, felony conviction, reckless conduct, gun safety, legal advice, jury trial, Second Amendment rights, gun ownership, legal protections. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 00:19 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Say, Teddy, I see you sent me something interesting that you found online. Teddy Nappen 00:26 Well, I always like to check on the Reddit retards to see what they’re saying. Evan Nappen 00:32 Oh, my God. And yeah, you did find some stuff that is very much of concern here, because I don’t want to see any of our people have a problem or get into trouble. And it made it clear to me just how important this Accidental Discharge (AD), the Dingus Law, in New Jersey, is. It is having a tremendous effect, and folks have got to know about it. They’ve got to understand that this is genuine. Teddy Nappen 00:59 And also to be clear, not everyone on Reddit is retarded, but everyone who’s retarded is on Reddit just saying. Evan Nappen 01:06 Ah, okay. Well, I’m glad to know the rules here. But what I want to do is go through the commentary to a certain degree. It is extremely important that individuals don’t make this mistake, because this change is dramatic to New Jersey’s law. And then it instantly has put forward Fifth Amendment rights that must be utilized by gun owners in New Jersey in order to protect themselves. Because the ramifications here are not just criminal, not just potential exposure to a year and a half in State Prison for a mere accident, but also loss of your Second Amendment rights. And not just loss of your rights from becoming a Page – 2 – of 12 convicted felon. Even if criminal charges are not pursued, you’re still going to face potential licensing revocation, pulling you in under the disqualifier of public health, safety, and welfare, what I call the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that they will use to further disarm you. Evan Nappen 02:19 I’ve encountered case after case after case after case of this. I’ve been, you know, practicing New Jersey gun law now for 40 years. I’ve seen what accidental discharges cause to the individual. I’m not making this up. This is real, and it is a real concern. And they’ve just poured gasoline on the fire by passing this new law that essentially criminalizes this to a degree that it has never been criminalized before. So, our rights become even more critical, and I want to make sure that folks understand this law. So, I’m going to review it and talk about some of the misinformation and such that is out there. And how, again, the anti-Second Amendment, the gun rights oppressionists, how they have structured this law to get it through. To make it have a facial appearance, and yet its effect is hidden until it pounds you, the unsuspecting gun owner. I understand how this system works, and I’ve seen what they do. So, they pass these laws, and in effect, they’re sneaky as all hell. This is a sneaky law that is there to disenfranchise gun owners. Teddy Nappen 03:57 Also the fact that anyone who thinks, oh, this will never happen to me. Oh, I’m a very responsible gun owner. They hate you. That is why they’re laying these traps. And anyone who thinks that this can’t happen to you, tell yourself, oh, I’ve never been in a car accident before. Anyone has ever thought that until it happens. Evan Nappen 04:19 Man, I cannot tell you how many times in the practice of gun law in New Jersey, I’ve had the client say, man, I never thought I’d be calling you. I’ve heard that uncountable numbers of times. I never thought I’d be calling you. Yet here I am. And, frankly, I want the word out so people understand this, and I’m going to deal more with that very fact and the reality of that in some of the commentary that’s here, because it also deserves to be addressed. I’m going to do that. Evan Nappen 04:53 So, first, let’s take a look at the law so you can really understand what the traps are. They’re sneaky tricks. How they passed this, and they know what they’re doing. They know what they’re doing. And they fool the public and create the ability here for the oppressionists to go after the unsuspecting folks that are thinking they’re doing the right thing. So, New Jersey, as you may or may not know, has utterly criminalized accidental discharge, and it is now in law, signed by Murphy. (https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) Evan Nappen 05:36 The law begins by talking about “recklessly”, and saying, oh yeah, recklessly has the same meaning found in the criminal law. It’s what reckless has always meant, and we will review that in a minute. Then it goes on to define what a structure is. And it says. “‘Structure’ means any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying business therein.” Okay, that’s about as broad as you can get. It’s almost everywhere, Page – 3 – of 12 right? Almost everywhere. So, why is that important? Because it’s that “structure” trick, that “structure” trap, that they weave into the law here. So that if you have an accidental discharge, even though they’re selling this law, look, a person commits a disorderly person’s offense. That’s the New Jersey level of misdemeanor. It’s just a DP. It’s not a felony, just a disorderly person’s offense. Evan Nappen 06:37 “. . . by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without a lawful purpose . . .” And there you go. It’s so freaking reasonable. It’s so reasonable. No, it is outrageously unreasonable. And here’s why. Because when you actually are going to face this, here’s what’s going to hit you in the face, folks. Here’s what it’s going to be. Number one, oh yeah, it’s a disorderly person’s offense. So, hey, at least it’s not a felony. I’m not going to become a convicted felon, right? Well, if you go down a little bit in the law, it says. A person who commits a violation of this section shall be charged with a crime of one degree higher than what would ordinarily be charged if the violation occurs within 100 yards of an occupied structure. Wait a minute! That occupied structure was any building, room, ship, vessel, car, airplane, or any other place that’s adopted for overnight accommodation or for carrying on business. Oh, you mean, basically, everywhere! Evan Nappen 07:46 Oh, so, wait a minute. It’s one degree higher for just about everything. Unless you’re in the middle of the woods and have an AD with the trees, that’s about it, you know. Short of that, you’re just about guaranteed to be within a structure, the way they’ve written, “within 100 yards of a structure”. It’s one degree higher. Well, what’s one degree higher than a disorderly persons offense? Felony level, fourth degree crime. Felony level. A year and a half in State Prison, folks. Okay? What does that mean? It means that is a disqualifier for the entire United States if you become convicted of that AD charge. Even if you don’t get a day in jail, it’s a fourth degree felony. You’re officially a convicted felon and a prohibited person, disenfranchised of your gun rights for the entire United States. So, that’s what an AD now means in New Jersey. Felony conviction. It would be the rarest of exception if it wasn’t charged as at least a fourth degree felony in New Jersey. So get that through your head first, straight away. Evan Nappen 09:10 Now, what about this reckless, recklessly, reckless. Okay. So, here going into Reddit.com and looking at the discussion and what have you. Okay, that’s all good. One of the folks there said they don’t agree with me, but I’m not a lawyer, and no sense taking a risk. You don’t need to. But then they go and quote, “recklessly” discharge. You can emphasize reckless, and then pull the legal definition of reckless, which is fine. You may recall, we actually even in the show. We discussed it. We reviewed reckless. Let’s take another look so we can fully understand what reckless means in New Jersey and how it interweaves to this new law. So, recklessly, a person, now this is the definition in New Jersey law of just recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense, when he consciously disregards a substantial risk, a substantial and unjustifiable risk, that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 10:50 Okay. I know that’s confusing or sounds like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. It’s not, and let me show you where the pressure points come in, where the gotchas are there for New Jersey citizens. In reality, in the reality of the practice of law here, conscious disregard. Again, what? There is a consciously disregard substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists. What’s the material element existing in the AD? That a gun will fire. Okay? Material element. You’re disregarding that a gun will fire. And why would a gun fire? Well, if the actor’s conduct and circumstance is known to him. Do you have a gun in your hand? Is that known to you? Yes, it is. Do you know that guns fire when the trigger is pulled? Yes, you do. Gross deviation from the standard of conduct. Well, everyone knows the basic rules of safety, right? Make sure your gun is unloaded. Make sure your gun is unloaded. Did you just grossly deviate from standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe? And that’s it. You betcha you did. You bet you that they can. Evan Nappen 12:11 And I’ll tell you what. You may say, no, no, it was an honest mistake, an accident. I didn’t realize, for whatever reason. A reasonable person. Who is a reasonable person? What is a reasonable person? How is reasonable person determined? And I’ll tell you how it’s determined. By 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty. That’s who’s going to determine your level of reasonableness when handling a gun. That you know goes bang. That you know can discharge, and there happened to somehow, while it was in your control, end up with a round that went bang. Do you want that in front of a jury in New Jersey? Do you think that’s fine? You can just say I didn’t consciously disregard it. Yeah, do you see where we’re going? Evan Nappen 13:05 And wait. Now it gets worse. Now it gets way worse. It gets way worse because of how they wrote this law itself. Let’s go back to the law itself. It says a person commits a disorderly person’s offense, which we already talked about, is automatically getting upgraded to felony, by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without lawful purpose. You tell me what accidental discharge has a lawful purpose. Obviously, there’s no lawful purpose because it’s an accidental discharge. So, every accidental discharge becomes one without lawful purpose. And a jury is going to be thinking about this law and saying, well, reckless. He had a gun. It was loaded, and he didn’t have a lawful purpose because it went off without a reason. And boom, there you go. There you go. Evan Nappen 14:06 You instantly, now, on an accidental discharge, have Fifth Amendment protections, a right against self incrimination, and you need to stand on those rights. If you self-report, if you do that, you are incriminating yourself. You are giving up your Fifth Amendment rights when it comes to an AD. And I say, do not do that. You have a Constitutional right against doing that. If you choose to give up your Fifth Amendment right, what will happen? Your Fourth Amendment rights are going to be brought in because they’re going to want to search and seize, take your guns, and that is routinely what happens. Then you’re going to face the criminal charge, and then you’re going to face the licensing, disenfranchisement of your Second Amendment rights and the forfeiture of your firearms. This is the escalation that I’ve seen occur over and over and over again. And that’s without the enhancement that New Jersey has just dumped on Dingus, okay? Page – 5 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 15:22 It actually reminds me. You know what it reminds me of Dad? Evan Nappen 15:26 What? Teddy Nappen 15:26 When you deal with guns, you do so at your peril. Evan Nappen 15:30 100 percent, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 15:32 If they’re going to go into that courtroom. Evan Nappen 15:34 And that is actual case law in New Jersey. When dealing with guns, you do so at your peril. That is New Jersey court case law, folks. Case law, not just a slogan. It’s actually how they look at it. And so here I am. I’m trying to warn folks. To tell folks. It’s my calling in life. This is what I do. It’s what I believe in, from the bottom my heart. Fighting for our Second Amendment rights. Making the education of these traps out there so that you can protect yourself. And then there’s this kind of comment in Reddit that just makes me go, you know what? Unbelievable. Here. Keep in mind that Nappen sells books, event tickets, legal insurance and legal services. The guy has incentives to scream, the sky is falling, and he’s been doing so for decades. Parentheses, he’s more right than wrong, though. Well, thanks for that little he’s more right than wrong. Evan Nappen 16:39 Let me just tell you something, man. If you think that that’s my objective here, to freaking sell books. The books are a labor of love. I can make more money working at McDonald’s than selling books. And event tickets? Event tickets, are you kidding me? Ten bucks and you get it back when you attend it, if you’re even charged. Legal insurance? It’s not insurance. It’s a member program. I’m the Independent Program Attorney for them. That’s not my program. I’m just an attorney for them, because I want to defend people in that. My incentive to scream to the sky is not that the sky is falling, but that it has fallen. That New Jersey is out to screw gun owners left and right. I deal with it on a daily basis and seeing it. And my mission here is to educate the people I care about, you guys and gals. To be warned, to realize the traps, to realize what it’s like trying to live as a law-abiding gun owner in this God forsaken state that constantly tries to oppress us. That’s what it’s about. That’s what it’s about. Evan Nappen 17:56 It is kind of annoying to see that kind of a statement made, because a person is clueless, clueless. And even if you think about it, if I was really about that, if I was really about making the money, why would I warn anybody? Hey, the more accidental discharges, the more criminal charges, the more licensing revocations and forfeitures, that means more work for me. Why would I want to tell anyone about it? Page – 6 – of 12 Let’s just let the system keep crunching people, destroying people, and I’ll make even more money, right? But I don’t do that. Do I? No, I try to make it so you don’t have to become a client of Evan Nappen’s. Just the opposite, pal. Just the opposite. So, keep it in mind. I’m here trying to protect people. I’m here trying to educate people. I’m here fighting for our rights, one gun law victim at a time that I would rather never have seen become a victim of New Jersey gun laws. Teddy Nappen 19:10 What I look at Dad is, remember when Shaneen Allen? When all of that, everything had broken through with that? It was, what was it? 100 pending cases? Of the exact same charge that had to be changed because of the ruling of that case. Evan Nappen 19:27 By fighting there and changing it, we succeeded, Teddy. Right! Right at that moment even, of saving 100 pending cases. Hey, that would have been a ton more work for me, and I could have made a lot of money. Why would you do that? Why would you educate? Why would you go out there and try to make these changes? Why would you fight for rights? I mean, hell, it’s like saying I’m a cancer doctor and I want more cancer so I can make more money. Really? Seriously? Do you really think that’s what it’s about? Well, it isn’t, folks. Because you don’t dedicate your life to what you believe in for that. You’d know it! Come on. It’s crazy, crazy stuff. I’m here. I want you to protect yourself. Beware of the Dingus law, and I’m happy to say that since we’ve been talking about this, I’ve had less Dingus cases, substantially less. And that’s very interesting. I think the word’s out. I think people are learning this is how you have to be. It’s good. And those that have called and have followed the advice. We’ve been able to save them. We’ve been able to not have them become the supplier of their own rope to hang themselves with. So, this is critical and important. Teddy Nappen 20:46 It honestly reminds me of you. Do you remember that scene in Better Call Saul? Where it’s Kim? She’s the public defender, and I think she’s representing this guy. He’s about to get like, I think, maybe 10 years in prison, and she negotiates it down all the way to, essentially, like, it was three months community service and probation. Evan Nappen 21:08 Exactly. Teddy Nappen 21:09 She negotiates it down. She just turns something that would have been a 10 years jail sentence. He walks out with her, and the first thing out of his words, three months? Could you’ve done better? It’s the level of no appreciation for this shit that has gone down. Evan Nappen 21:29 Ungrateful clients. Yeah, we’ve, we’ve, heard of those. We’ve heard of such things as ungrateful clients. But the system is unbelievable when it comes to New Jersey’s oppression and the turning into criminals of law-abiding citizens. And if the actual lame stream media ever actually covered it, maybe they would finally quit doing it. But of course, they’re in cahoots with the same powers that be, because they hate Page – 7 – of 12 us just as much. So, this is why we’re here, doing Gun Lawyer, trying to educate. We want you to be protected. It’s the reason for the books to be out there. So that something’s out there explaining it, and you can hopefully protect yourself. It’s why we do it, and that’s really what it is. Evan Nappen 22:21 Look, folks, if I wanted to make money, I’d go be a personal injury attorney, right? Go do that kind of garbage. It’s not what I believe in. I do this because it’s what I believe in. That’s why we’re here, doing it. If we didn’t believe in it, there are plenty of ways to make a hell of a lot more money than by being a gun lawyer. But that’s not what it’s about. It’s about doing something for a cause, and feeling that your life has meaning because you’re doing that. Evan Nappen 22:48 And that is also why I want to mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Because they have a cause, and their cause is fighting for our rights. They are the largest gun rights group in New Jersey. They’re the NRA affiliate. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org. Make sure you join, make sure you get the newsletter, make sure you get the email alerts, and stay in the fight. Be part of the solution. Join anjrpc.org. Evan Nappen 23:19 And also our really great, great friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. It’s where we get our training. It’s where we got our certifications. They have a great pro shop, great guns. A lot of good toys there. They got a lot of great sales, good stuff going on. They treat their members and the shooters and their customers so well. Just like family. Everybody loves WeShoot. I know you will, too. They’re conveniently located right in Lakewood, close to the Parkway. They are a resource for Central New Jersey. You know, our ranges are critical. It’s important. You need a place to shoot. You need a place to practice. You need a place to gain your skills and keep them sharp. WeShoot is ideal for that. You can go to weshootusa.com and check out their website. Beautiful photography. They have top of the line firearms, and they can get you equipped, set up right. Whether you’re new at this idea of gun ownership or whether you’re just a grizzled old gun owning veteran like myself. And I don’t mean veteran in a military sense. I’m not a military veteran, but I mean a veteran of owning guns for many, many years, many, many, many, many, many, many years. Since I was a kid. And, you know, not everybody has had that experience, but luckily, Teddy, you have. I think you’ve shot a gun since you could shoot a gun. I don’t know. Do you know when? When did I first have you shoot a gun? Do you remember? Teddy Nappen 24:54 Well, if I remember, I think it was probably eight years old. Evan Nappen 24:58 Well, that would be an actual firearm. Teddy Nappen 25:02 When? When you actually let me shoot a gun? Page – 8 – of 12 Evan Nappen 25:07 Yeah, the actual firearm. But prior to that, you had BB guns. Air guns. Teddy Nappen 25:10 Oh, BB guns. Yeah, oh yeah, from the little cap guns. I remember the little popper cap gun that you could get where it had the it, you know, you would have to reload it with the little red caps and pop it in. Evan Nappen 25:22 And I taught you basic gun safety, loading things from toys, right? Teddy Nappen 25:31 That’s how it went. I had my little cowboy, the carol spinner that you got me. That I could actually learn how to spin. Evan Nappen 25:42 Spinning was fun, huh? Teddy Nappen 25:43 And the training video you gave me as well from the western. Evan Nappen 25:46 You got good at it, too, buddy? Yeah, right up there. You could, you could do the Doc Holiday scene? You know, with Ringo doing the gun spinning. Yeah, that’s good. Teddy Nappen 25:57 Wow. Johnny Ringo, exactly. Evan Nappen 26:04 Hmm, do I like him? Reminds me of me. Now I know I hate him. Teddy Nappen 26:09 Well, someone walked across your grave. Evan Nappen 26:11 Great stuff. Great stuff. Love the movie Tombstone. Okay. And I can’t forget to plug my book. My book that I make so much money selling. New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you buy lots and lots and lots of copies. Please go to EvanNappen.com and get that book. It may even save your ass, believe it or not. And that’s why I wrote it. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. It explains this insanity called New Jersey gun law. Get your copy today at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 27:02 Well, as we know, Press Checks are always free. And speaking on standing on one’s rights, which lack thereof in the U.K. You know, I always wonder. At some point, is the U.K. ever just going to hit rock Page – 9 – of 12 bottom? And apparently not. They still keep going lower. As coming here out of, you know, I always enjoy, you know, browsing Breitbart. The British government plans to scrap jury trials. (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/03/11/british-govt-plan-to-scrap-jury-trials-clears-first-hurdle/) It’s like, you know, what? You know, King George was right on a few things. That’s the level of insanity. So it’s right out of the article from Breitbart. The left wing government plans to scrap jury trials by Kurt Zindulka. Evan Nappen 27:53 Okay, wait a minute. They got rid of the Second Amendment protection. They have no First Amendment protection. Now they’re dumping their right to a grand jury that they don’t have. They never. They don’t have that right. We have that right. You can see how important the Bill of Rights is, and why our Founding Fathers, fighting the British, were so foresighted to get the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Because look at what the UK does. Teddy Nappen 28:18 Yeah, and I love the idea of it’s cleared a major hurdle. Ah, yes, that’s how they view rights, a major hurdle. And it can write. Evan Nappen 28:28 A major hurdle. Worthy oppressors. Teddy Nappen 28:32 As the deeply controversial measure concocted by a Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, David Lammy. Oh, a Lammy. A Lemmy or what are they? Sorry, what were the limies? It would upend a millennium, English legal tradition. It’s supposed to reduce the backlog of cases. Ah, that’s the problem. Need to reduce the backlog of cases. You know, those feeble rights. It eliminates juries for any case where a defendant is facing three years or less. Ah, that is where this is the insidious plan comes into play. Because it’s like, wait a second, three years. So, they are claiming, like, go into the records already 80 cases backlogged, upward of 200,000, by 2035. And their quote “to restore a swift and fair justice”, we are pulling every level available . . . Evan Nappen 29:31 Oh boy. You’ll be tried and hung very quickly. Teddy Nappen 29:34 You’ll have a fair trial and then be shot. Evan Nappen 29:40 Right! Round up the usual suspects Teddy Nappen 29:42 Exactly, exactly. Meanwhile, 3200 lawyers have written a letter calling the government to reverse course, arguing that the central pillar of this legislation that will reduce backlogs lacks actual evidence to actually reduce backlogs. So, the very thing that they are citing. But I love this. And by the way, this Page – 10 – of 12 isn’t a new thing. They’ve been pushing this all the way back in November of 20. I pulled this from The Guardian. The Guardian poll goes like the whole line of why they’re trying to justify it. We have to stop the criminals from gaming the system by choosing a trial by jury, to increase the chances of the proceedings collapse. That is there they’re worried about the criminals, the drug dealers and career criminals laughing at the docs, knowing that cases can take years to come to trial. And we got to do this. Oh, the poor cases of a court cases involving rape take over two years on average. So, it’s all about the rape cases, not the fact that you let mass migration in your country, where it goes from 12,000 rapes a year to 70,000 rapes a year. A mass majority committed by the illegals and immigrants that you have led into your country. But whatever. And that’s the crux of it, because, and that’s the insidious part, all of those cases will get a full trial. So, the immigrants and the illegals get the full trial when it comes to rape, but the hate speech laws, oh, two years just short. So, you get a politically appointed judge who already hates the idea of free speech now is going to crack down on. You know, I’ll give you the few highlights of that. U.K. free speech crackdown has seen 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses of retweets and cartoons that are deemed offensive. Evan Nappen 31:41 And then the cutoff is up to three years, right? So, you don’t get a jury trial, even though you could face three years in prison. You can be sentenced to three years with no jury trial. It’s outrageous. Teddy Nappen 31:54 Twelve thousand arrests a year under these hate speech laws. Evan Nappen 31:57 All right. So, let me tell you about in America and in New Jersey, how our right works and where the cut off is. So, particularly in New Jersey and in the U.S. for that matter, the cut off, my friends, is six months. So, if the penalty you face, if the potential incarceration, incarceration, that you face is six months or less, then you do not have a right to a jury trial. But if you face any penalty that is over six months where you could go to jail for six months and a day, then you have a right to a jury in America. So, this is why it’s structured in this way for New Jersey in the six months. Now, many states will have systems where, even though you have a right at six months, they will still have a misdemeanor lower court. New Hampshire is a good example, where you could face a year as a penalty. However, you can opt for it to be heard, and waive your jury right, in effect, for that max of the year. So, you can, by your own choice, decide to stay what’s called a bench trial. Evan Nappen 33:31 But essentially, the six month is the cut off. Anytime after that, you can, you have the right to demand the jury trial. That’s just how New Jersey functions. So, every disorderly persons offense in New Jersey is six months or less. Every matter heard in municipal court, in district court, the lower courts, they are six months or less. It’s also why you can be held in contempt, and the punishment is six months or less. You know, the right to that jury trial for contempt, even because the judge has that power up to six months. And by the way, if you were charged with 10 disorderly persons offenses, each carry up to six months in jail. In theory, you could be convicted of all 10 of those offenses and be given the maximum sentence of six months and have them all run consecutively. So, you could be forced to do 60 months Page – 11 – of 12 of jail with no jury trial, which would be the five years, theoretically, without having a right to a jury trial, even in America. Evan Nappen 34:49 But, of course, realistically, that isn’t what happens. There’s merger of all the different offenses. So, I’ve never heard of that happening. But in theory, in theory, that’s how. It’s a six month cut off on whatever offense it is here. Now the U.K. wants to make it three years. Think about that. You’re giving one judge, one political hack of a judge, imagine the power, to incarcerate for three years. Now, you know, if you face any charge that’s over a year, that’s a felony, and you lose your gun rights. Even in America, if the offense that you are end up found being found guilty of or pleading guilty to is a penalty that exceeds one year, which as federal law defines, believe it or not, as over two years. I know that’s confusing, but that’s the law. And so what happens is the. That’s for federal law purposes, okay? State law in New Jersey, anything that we talk about felony can still be over a year for state law, but talking federal law. But in the U.K. Now, if you look at it, three years is an option to have a bench trial with no right to a jury. That is crazy. That is absolute felony land, with no jury. There’s a reason our Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution, and it’s glaringly obvious why. Teddy Nappen 36:35 Well, it’s actually pretty funny as well, because I pulled the history of it. And there’s a reason the ropes, the Sixth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment to have the right to a jury, both for criminal and civil. The reason was the British crown, at the time, thanks to the Stamp Act, they were trying colonists through a special Admiralty court, quote, unquote. No jury. A single judge appointed by the Crown to decide cases. So, a foreign judge from across the pond who’s loyal to the King gets to decide the colonists’ fate when it came to that issue. It was a direct assault on fundamental rights, and that was why it was written and list, depriving us many cases of benefit of a trial by jury. That was in the Declaration of Independence. Evan Nappen 37:26 Well, and this is exactly why we also have the Fourth Amendment right. Because the British would have a general warrant, and they would just search under a “general warrant”. There’s a reason we have the Second Amendment. There’s what did with Gage, General Gage. What was it seizing the colonists’ arms. Okay? The reason for our Bill of Rights, for our rights, is what we experienced from the British, and they’re still at it now. Teddy Nappen 37:57 What’s funny is, it reminds me of that scene in “Turn”. The very opening scene is the colonists, the Tory there. And guess who comes running out? A British soldier for the whole amendment on storied soldiers right, quartering soldiers like, wow, really. Evan Nappen 38:20 There we go. Hey, that’s still an amendment that shows our right to privacy in a way, right? It demonstrates even their concerns and what we had to deal with. But hey, Teddy, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU. That’s the Gun Owner Fuck Up. Where you get to learn a valuable lesson that it was quite expensive for someone else to learn. These are all based on real cases. Real cases. This week’s Page – 12 – of 12 GOFU is real simple here, folks. Don’t leave your gun in a car and have somebody else use your car. It ends up being extremely problematic. Because, you know, we often will lock up our gun in a car, which is legal under the Carry Killer Bill. How you’re supposed to secure it. But what happens is, though, if it’s left there, and then somebody takes your car? Like your wife or your kids or someone, and now they’re driving around with a gun that isn’t theirs in the car. Evan Nappen 39:32 You have to be cognizant of where your gun is. Do not leave it locked in the car. Do not leave it. Because then these folks can inadvertently go to sensitive places. They can have other problems that lead to you having problems. And then you’re lucky if the problem is simply a licensing problem and not a criminal problem, as well. It can even be a criminal problem, arguably, for them, because they’re now, it could be argued, they’re in possession of your gun, and it just escalates. So, the GOFU is this. Know where your gun is. Don’t keep it in the car. Beware. If anyone uses your car, make sure your firearms are with you and not in the car when they take it. Evan Nappen 40:18 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 40:28 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E281_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

In the Season 6 opener of Best Practices with Kenny Berger, Kenny sits down with Geordan Logan of Claggett & Sykes to explore why the most effective trial lawyers don't just tell stories, they show them.Drawing on his background as an Air Force instructor, corporate educator, public defender, and plaintiff trial lawyer, Geordan explains how adults learn, remember, and make decisions in the courtroom. His guiding principle, “edutainment,” focuses on using visuals and storytelling to capture attention, build credibility, and give jurors memory “hooks” they can carry into deliberations.In this episode, you'll hear practical strategies for:Designing openings that act as a clear roadmap for the entire trialUsing demonstratives and visuals to reinforce credibility and focus juror attentionPreempting defense arguments by framing and dismantling them earlyHumanizing damages so jurors understand what was truly taken, not just the numbersKenny and Geordan also discuss the mission behind Outer Realm, a national community of plaintiff lawyers committed to sharing knowledge, strengthening trial advocacy, and protecting the Seventh Amendment.If you want jurors to remember your case and trust the story you're telling, this episode sets the framework.

Dave Roberts: Restoring OUR Republic & GOD Stories!Join Amanda Joan of Heart and the Typical Skeptic Podcast as we sit down with Dave Roberts — common‑law advocate, believer of our founding‑fathers' documents, and activist of “Committees of Safety” under the Constitution's First Amendment “The right to assemble”, and the Seventh Amendment, “The right to a common-law grand jury”. In this episode we also explore Dave's personal journey — his God‑stories, spiritual encounters across higher realms and dimensions, and how those experiences fuel his mission for lawful restoration, awakening, and real American sovereignty.

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of federal civil procedure, covering essential topics such as jurisdiction, venue, pleadings, summary judgment, trial processes, post-trial motions, appeals, and the doctrines of preclusion and settlement. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying policy goals and strategic implications of each stage in the litigation process, making it a valuable resource for law students and aspiring legal professionals preparing for the bar exam.Navigating the labyrinth of federal civil procedure can be daunting. Imagine you're a young attorney, fresh out of law school, standing in a courtroom for the first time. The stakes are high, and understanding the journey from pre-trial motions to final judgment is crucial. This post will guide you through the essential stages of federal civil procedure, demystifying the process and empowering you with knowledge.Pre-Trial Procedures: The pre-trial phase is where the groundwork is laid. It involves pleadings, discovery, and motions that set the stage for trial. Understanding the nuances of each step, from filing a complaint to responding with an answer, is vital. Discovery, often the most time-consuming part, is where both parties exchange information to build their cases.Trial Process: Once pre-trial procedures are complete, the trial begins. This is where evidence is presented, witnesses are examined, and arguments are made. The trial process is the heart of civil litigation, requiring meticulous preparation and strategic thinking.Post-Trial and Final Judgment: After the trial, the focus shifts to post-trial motions and the final judgment. This stage can involve appeals, enforcement of judgments, and sometimes, settlement negotiations. Understanding the implications of a final judgment and the options available for appeal is crucial for any legal practitioner.Federal civil procedure is a complex but navigable journey. By understanding each phase, from pre-trial to final judgment, you can better prepare for the challenges of litigation. Whether you're a seasoned attorney or a law student, mastering these procedures is key to success in the legal field.Call to Action: Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and deepen your understanding of federal civil procedure.TakeawaysUnderstanding federal civil procedure is crucial for law students.Subject matter jurisdiction is about the court's authority to hear a case.Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between parties.Personal jurisdiction is rooted in due process and protects individual rights.Notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parties of legal actions.Venue rules help determine the proper court for a case.Pleadings initiate the lawsuit process and must meet specific standards.Summary judgment can resolve cases without a trial when no material facts are in dispute.The right to a jury trial is preserved under the Seventh Amendment.Preclusion doctrines prevent relitigation of claims and issues. federal civil procedure, jurisdiction, venue, pleadings, summary judgment, trial process, appeals, preclusion, settlement, ADR

In this case, the court considered this issue: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.PLRA exhaustion operates as a standard affirmative defense subject to the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The usual practice requires factual disputes regarding legal claims to go to a jury, even when a judge could ordinarily resolve such questions independently. Because Congress legislates against the backdrop of established common-law adjudicatory principles, and because the PLRA remains silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, this silence constitutes strong evidence that courts should follow the usual practice of sending factual disputes to juries when they are intertwined with the merits.At the time Congress enacted the PLRA in 1996, well-established precedent required that factual disputes intertwined with Seventh Amendment claims go to juries. Two lines of cases support this principle. First, in cases involving both legal and equitable claims, Beacon Theatres established that judges may not resolve equitable claims first if doing so could prevent legal claims from reaching a jury, because judicial discretion must preserve jury trial rights wherever possible. Second, in subject matter jurisdiction cases like Smithers v Smith and Land v Dollar, courts may not resolve factual disputes when those disputes are intertwined with the merits, as this would risk deciding the controversy's substance without ordinary trial procedures, including the right to a jury. When the PLRA was enacted, the usual federal court practice across various contexts involved resolving factual disputes intertwined with the merits at the merits stage itself.Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that the majority's statutory interpretation contravenes basic principles because the PLRA's silence cannot confer a jury trial right, and that the jury trial right under the Seventh Amendment does not depend on factual overlap between threshold issues and the merits.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

on todays show Maddie breaks down the legal case of  Corinne Thomas et al. vs. Humboldt County, California, where landowners face harsh penalties for alleged cannabis activities. One petitioner was fined $1.8 million to demolish a garage. The plaintiffs argue the fines violate the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause and the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. The case highlights the lack of due process and bias in county hearings. The Supreme Court is considering the appeal, focusing on the Seventh Amendment. Additionally, the conversation touched on the potential impact of Trump's economic policies and the challenges faced by New Orleans' prison system. The discussion centered on the impending departure of Scott Adams, who is known for his common-sense approach and humor in his podcasts. Adams, who has been diagnosed with cancer, plans to continue working until he can no longer do so. The conversation also touched on the difficulty of replacing Rush Limbaugh and the impact of his passing. Additionally, there was a brief mention of Sudanese deportations and a positive review of Dunkin' Donuts' new peach tea Palmer. The segment concluded with a promotion for Second Round Bakery cookies and an invitation for listener feedback. Don't Miss it!

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases for legal claims, primarily those seeking monetary damages (e.g., torts, contract breaches), as opposed to equitable remedies like injunctions or specific performance.Voir dire is the process of questioning potential jurors to ensure an impartial jury. Challenges for cause allow dismissal for demonstrated bias, while peremptory challenges permit a limited number of removals without stating a reason, though they cannot be discriminatory.A typical civil trial proceeds with opening statements, the plaintiff's case-in-chief (presenting evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard), the defendant's case-in-chief, rebuttal, surrebuttal (if any), closing arguments, and jury instructions before deliberation and verdict.A motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(a)) argues that the opposing party has not presented sufficient evidence to support a verdict in their favor and can be made after that party has been fully heard. The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.A motion for a new trial (Rule 59) seeks to restart the trial due to errors or issues that prejudiced the outcome, such as evidentiary errors, misconduct, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, or newly discovered evidence. It differs from Rule 50 in that it doesn't necessarily argue the existing verdict is legally impossible.The entry of judgment formally concludes the trial court proceedings and triggers deadlines for post-judgment remedies and appeals. One ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60 is excusable neglect, generally with a one-year time limit from the entry of judgment.United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The general deadline for filing a notice of appeal is within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment.The de novo standard of review means the appellate court reviews legal questions anew without deference to the trial court's ruling. The clear error standard applies to factual findings, which the appellate court will only overturn if a definite and firm mistake is found.Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents relitigating a claim already decided by a final judgment on the merits. The elements are a final judgment on the merits, identity of the parties (or privity), and the same claim or cause of action.Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) prevents relitigating specific factual or legal issues already decided in a prior case. A key requirement is that the issue must have been actually litigated and determined, and essential to the prior judgment.

The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to theConstitution of The United States, it was ratified on December 15, 1791.The Bill of Rights spells out Americans' rights in relationto their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to theindividual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for dueprocess of law, and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Governmentto the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in theConstitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparageothers retained by the people.” The First Amendment provides several rights protections: toexpress ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a groupto protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. Italso protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents thegovernment from creating or favoring a religion. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and beararms. The Third Amendment prevents government from forcinghomeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the Revolutionary War,laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonablesearch and seizure of an individual or their private property. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for peopleaccused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by agrand jury.  A person cannot be triedtwice for the same offense or have property taken away without justcompensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot beimprisoned without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections topeople accused of crimes, such as, the right to a speedy and public trial, incriminal cases, trial by an impartial jury, and to be informed of criminalcharges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or herown witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer. The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial inFederal civil cases. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and a crueland unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights inthe Constitution does not mean that people do not have other right, that havenot been spelled out. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government onlyhas those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongsto the states or to the people.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violate the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U-S Constitution?    The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. First, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial applies to this SEC enforcement action. The claims are "legal in nature" and closely resemble common law fraud actions. The substance of the claim matters more than its statutory origin or which branch of government brings the action. Moreover, the civil penalties sought are punitive in nature, which is a type of remedy traditionally provided by courts of law rather than courts of equity. Second, the "public rights" exception to the Seventh Amendment does not apply here because this case does not fall within the narrow categories of matters that have historically been exclusively determined by the executive and legislative branches. The mere facts that Congress assigned the matter to an agency and that the government is the plaintiff do not change this outcome. Unlike the novel regulatory scheme in Atlas Roofing, these SEC fraud claims have close analogues in traditional common law actions that were historically adjudicated by courts with juries. Because this action is essentially a common law fraud suit seeking punitive remedies, it must be heard by an Article III court with a jury, despite Congress assigning it to an administrative proceeding. This conclusion preserves the constitutional separation of powers and the role of juries in adjudicating traditional legal claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In which a constitutional change finally happens after a two-hundred-year delay just to spite one Texas poli sci professor, and Ken likes it when scriveners get away scot-free. Certificate #43079.

This Day in Legal History: The Amsterdam Treaty Broadens the EUOn October 2, 1997, the Amsterdam Treaty was signed by European Union (EU) delegates, marking a significant step in the evolution of the EU's institutional framework and policy ambitions. The treaty aimed to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and democratic legitimacy of the Union, amending previous agreements like the Maastricht Treaty. One of its key features was strengthening the powers of the European Parliament, giving it greater legislative influence through the co-decision procedure, which allowed it to act as an equal legislator with the Council of the European Union.The Amsterdam Treaty also laid the groundwork for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), aiming for more coordinated diplomatic actions and international influence. It introduced the role of the High Representative for the CFSP to improve coherence in foreign policy. Additionally, the treaty made strides in areas such as justice and home affairs, addressing issues like asylum, immigration, and judicial cooperation across member states. The treaty was also a response to the anticipated enlargement of the EU, as post-Communist countries in Eastern Europe were expected to join, requiring institutional reforms to manage an expanded Union. The Amsterdam Treaty signaled a shift toward a more integrated and politically unified Europe, preparing the EU for the challenges of a growing membership and a more globalized world.Alphabet Inc.'s Google is facing a renewed antitrust lawsuit from Sensory Inc., a voice recognition technology company, accusing the tech giant of monopolistic practices in the voice assistant market. Sensory alleges that Google used its dominance in general search to create barriers preventing consumers from using alternative voice assistants and wakeword software to access non-Google search engines. This lawsuit revives a previous case from April 2022, which was paused to allow other antitrust litigation against Google to proceed. In August, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had illegally monopolized the search market through exclusivity agreements. Sensory claims Google extended this behavior by preventing hardware manufacturers from allowing consumers to choose competing voice assistants with non-Google search engines. Sensory also argues that Google imposes restrictions on wakeword technology in various devices, including smartphones, home electronics, and cars, ensuring competitors like Siri and Bixby default to Google's search engine. Google has not yet commented on the case.Google Hit With Renewed Antitrust Suit Over Voice AssistantsThe US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has paused a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case involving Amazon, following claims that the agency violates constitutional principles. Amazon argues that the NLRB breaches the separation of powers by acting as both prosecutor and judge, after it rejected Amazon's objections to a union election at a Staten Island warehouse. Amazon sought an emergency injunction to halt the NLRB's internal litigation regarding its refusal to bargain with the union. When a lower court didn't rule on the request, Amazon appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which had recently blocked a similar case involving SpaceX. Amazon's lawsuit challenges the constitutional structure of the NLRB, claiming its members are unconstitutionally shielded from removal by the president and that the agency's quasi-judicial powers violate the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial. This case is part of a broader wave of constitutional challenges to the NLRB's authority. Neither Amazon nor the NLRB have commented on the ruling.Fifth Circuit Halts Amazon NLRB Case Over Constitutional DisputeThe Biden administration is pressuring U.S. port employers to improve their offer to striking dockworkers from the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA). The strike, now in its second day, has disrupted shipping across dozens of ports from Maine to Texas, affecting goods from food to automobiles and causing significant economic strain. With over 38 ships waiting to dock, the strike could cost the U.S. economy $5 billion per day. Despite a 50% wage hike offer from the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), the ILA, led by Harold Daggett, is demanding more, including a $5 hourly raise per year and a halt to port automation projects. President Biden has urged foreign ocean carriers, which profited during the pandemic, to agree to a fair contract, while the administration monitors for price gouging. Retailers have initiated backup plans to mitigate potential impacts on the holiday season. Economists warn that while the strike could raise inflation, the broader economic effects depend on its duration. The National Retail Federation and some Republicans are calling on Biden to halt the strike, but he has refused.US port strike backed by White House | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Swiss Banks Settle with Holocaust SurvivorsOn August 12, 1998, a landmark settlement was reached when Swiss banks agreed to pay $1.25 billion to Holocaust survivors and their heirs. The settlement resolved lawsuits that accused the banks of withholding millions of dollars deposited by Holocaust victims before and during World War II. For decades, these accounts had been frozen, and the banks had been criticized for their lack of transparency and for making it difficult for survivors and their families to access the funds. The lawsuits brought to light the complex role that Swiss financial institutions played during the war, often prioritizing financial gain over moral responsibility. This settlement was seen as a significant acknowledgment of the wrongs committed and a step toward justice for the victims. The agreement also marked a broader recognition of the need to address the financial injustices faced by Holocaust survivors, setting a precedent for other restitution efforts globally. The $1.25 billion fund was distributed to survivors, heirs, and various Jewish organizations, symbolizing a long-overdue attempt to rectify the banks' wartime conduct. The settlement highlighted the intersection of financial institutions, moral responsibility, and historical accountability in the aftermath of one of history's greatest tragedies.The recent Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy has sent shockwaves through federal health agencies, significantly impacting their ability to impose civil penalties. The decision, which requires a jury trial for civil penalties in SEC cases, is expected to influence how agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct enforcement actions. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could lead to increased legal challenges from healthcare entities, such as hospitals and drugmakers, against penalties imposed by these agencies. The ruling has raised questions about the constitutionality of administrative procedures, particularly those handled by administrative law judges, and may force agencies to reassess their enforcement strategies. The decision could also slow down current enforcement actions while agencies evaluate their legal standing. This ruling is likely to embolden those facing civil penalties to challenge the HHS and its agencies in court, especially in areas like Medicare, tobacco regulation, and the 340B Drug Pricing Program.By way of very brief background, in SEC v. Jarkasy, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC's administrative enforcement of fraud claims without jury trials violated the Seventh Amendment, as such claims involve traditional common law matters warranting a jury. The court also ruled that the Dodd-Frank Act's broad delegation of authority to the SEC to choose between administrative proceedings and federal court without clear guidelines violated the nondelegation doctrine. Additionally, the protections against removal for administrative law judges (ALJs) were found to infringe on the President's duty under Article II. The Supreme Court later upheld the Seventh Amendment violation but did not address the other issues.Health Agency Approach on Civil Penalties Shaken by High CourtIsmael "El Mayo" Zambada, a prominent Mexican drug lord and co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, claimed he was deceived and forcibly taken to the United States last month. In a statement released by his lawyer, Zambada alleged that he was lured into a meeting by Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of his former partner Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, and state officials in Sinaloa. He recounted being ambushed, restrained, and flown to the U.S. under duress. Contrary to Zambada's account, Guzman Lopez's lawyer and U.S. authorities assert that Guzman Lopez surrendered voluntarily after negotiations. During the incident, Zambada claims that one of the officials involved, Hector Cuen, was killed, and his bodyguard has since disappeared. Both Zambada and Guzman Lopez have pleaded not guilty to drug-trafficking charges in the U.S.'El Mayo' says he was ambushed in new account of US arrest | ReutersA federal appeals court has extended an order blocking President Joe Biden's administration from implementing its student debt relief plan, which aimed to lower monthly payments and accelerate loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal from seven Republican-led states, granted an injunction that halts further implementation of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan. This ruling follows a previous order that temporarily blocked parts of the plan. The court's decision means that while loans already forgiven won't be reversed, future implementations are on hold. The Biden administration criticized the ruling, arguing it would increase costs for borrowers, while the Republican-led states contend that the administration exceeded its legal authority with the plan. The SAVE Plan, which had partially taken effect, was projected to benefit over 20 million borrowers but now faces legal hurdles that may delay or alter its future. This development follows earlier challenges to Biden's broader $430 billion debt cancellation initiative, which was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023.Federal court extends block on Biden's student debt relief plan | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes back to the podcast Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Steve Renau, Husch Blackwell's Head of Thought Leadership, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Court held 6-3 that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial requires the SEC to pursue civil penalties for securities-fraud violations in federal court. No longer can the SEC rely on its own in-house tribunal to secure these penalties. Although Jarkesy applies only to the SEC, the Court's reasoning could have far-reaching implications across a number of federal agencies, particularly when “the ‘public rights' exception to Article III jurisdiction does not apply.”Our discussion highlights the administrative law history that was brought to bear upon the case and how it was that the adjudication of civil penalties came to be matters before non-Article III courts. We then pivot to some of the impacts Jarkesy could have in the future, including whether the Supreme Court will take up related issues of due process in future challenges to federal agency enforcement actions.Finally, we discuss Jarkesy in light of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision that ended the doctrine of Chevron deference and the implications of both decisions for administrative agencies and the private businesses they regulate.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Richard Epstein BiographyRichard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Professor Epstein has published work on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.Epstein's most recent book publication is The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020). Other works include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2014); Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011); The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (2009); Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (2008); How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (2006); Overdose (2006); and Free Markets under Siege: Cartels, Politics, and Social Welfare (2005).He received a BA degree in philosophy summa cum laude from Columbia in 1964; a BA degree in law with first-class honors from Oxford University in 1966; and an LLB degree cum laude, from the Yale Law School in 1968. Upon graduation he joined the faculty at the University of Southern California, where he taught until 1972. In 1972, he visited the University of Chicago and became a regular member of the faculty the following year.He has been a senior fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics since 1984 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985. In 2011, Epstein was a recipient of the Bradley Prize for outstanding achievement. In 2005, the College of William & Mary School of Law awarded him the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.Additional ResourcesThe Justice Insiders, “The Administrative State Is Not Your Friend: A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein” (Episode 7), June 21, 2022The Justice Insiders, “SEC Plays Chicken with Jarkesy” (Episode 18), October 16, 2023U.S. Supreme Court, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, June 27, 2024Gregg N. Sofer and Joseph S. Diedrich, “Landmark Supreme Court Decisions Restrain Federal Administrative Agency Power,” June 28, 2024© 2024 Husch Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved. This information is intended only to provide general information in summary form on legal and business topics of the day. The contents hereof do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific legal advice should be sought in particular matters.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions […]

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute---To register, click the link above.

In a big week for administrative law watchers, the Supreme Court issued a pair of 6-3 decisions paring back the powers of administrative agencies. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and in Jarkesy v. S.E.C. it held that the Seventh Amendment prohibits agencies from seeking civil penalties for suits resembling actions at common law before administrative tribunals. Taken together, these cases demonstrate the Court's focus on separation of powers. Below, we consider their potential impact on the Federal Trade Commission. Kate White kwhite@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8855 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/katherine-white Hosted by Simone Roach Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

The U.S. Supreme Court has restored the right to a jury trial for Americans facing the Administrative State by affirming the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This overturned the SEC's unconstitutional administrative prosecution regime, which targeted George R. Jarkesy, Jr. in a lengthy administrative proceeding without a jury. The Court, agreeing with NCLA's brief, ruled 6-3 that the SEC violated Jarkesy's Seventh Amendment rights. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss and celebrate this historic victory vindicating Americans' civil liberties.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The term is over, and what an ending it was! Presidents are entitled to broad immunity for official acts, Chevron deference is no more, the Seventh Amendment applies against the administrative state, nobody gets to sue over social media censorship, and the 8th Amendment does not prohibit anti-camping laws. These are the holdings of just […]

The term is over, and what an ending it was! Presidents are entitled to broad immunity for official acts, Chevron deference is no more, the Seventh Amendment applies against the administrative state, nobody gets to sue over social media censorship, and the 8th Amendment does not prohibit anti-camping laws. These are the holdings of just a few of the blockbuster cases released in the last few days of this term. After your hosts discuss those cases, GianCarlo gets one last chance to stump Zack in trivia, and then they follow the Court into the summer recess. Over the summer, your hosts arrange interviews with judges, lawyers, and experts, so please let them know if there are any people you'd like them to interview or legal issues you'd like them to cover in depth next term. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss the win in this episode and dig into an interesting footnote. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate the victory in this latest episode. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Justices rule 6-3 in SEC v. Jarkesy that it violates the Constitution's right to a trial by jury for the securities agency to try fraud cases in internal proceedings. Plus, as Joe Biden and Donald Trump prepare to meet on the debate stage for the first time in 2024, what does each candidate need to accomplish, and will it matter that CNN is muting the microphones to stop crosstalk? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Miranda RightsOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally transforming the criminal justice system. The Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police interrogation, a decision aimed at protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This ruling introduced what is now known as "Miranda rights," which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything said can be used in court. The case arose from Ernesto Miranda's conviction based on a confession obtained without these warnings, which the Court deemed unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren emphasized the necessity of procedural safeguards to ensure suspects' awareness of their rights. This decision has since become a cornerstone of American legal procedure, significantly influencing law enforcement practices nationwide. The Miranda warning aims to prevent coercion and ensure fair treatment, highlighting the importance of individual rights within the justice system.Today, Tesla shareholders are voting to approve Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package and relocate the company's legal home to Texas. Musk announced on social media that the pay package and relocation were passing by wide margins. Approval of this substantial pay deal could alleviate investor concerns about Musk's future at Tesla and support the company's efforts to reverse a court decision that voided the pay package. However, the decision may still face challenges in the Delaware court, where a judge previously ruled that Tesla's board was too influenced by Musk. Despite the shareholder vote, legal experts, such as UC Berkeley's Adam Badawi, are uncertain if the court will uphold it.Tesla's stock rose significantly in premarket trading following the announcement. The final voting results will be disclosed at a shareholder meeting in Texas. Major proxy firms had advised against the pay package, but a mix of institutional and retail investor votes helped secure its passage. Shareholders also voted on relocating Tesla's legal headquarters and re-electing board members Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch. This vote is seen as a test of confidence in Musk's leadership amid Tesla's recent challenges, including a significant drop in stock value since 2021 and concerns about Musk's commitments across his multiple ventures.Musk says Tesla shareholders voting yes for his $56 billion pay package | ReutersDisney and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have resolved their dispute with a deal allowing Disney to develop the Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando for the next 15 years. The feud began in 2022 when former Disney CEO Bob Chapek criticized a state law limiting discussions of sexuality and gender issues in schools, known as the "Don't Say Gay" law. The new agreement, made with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, commits Disney to spending at least $8 billion over a decade and $17 billion over 10 to 20 years on the resort. This investment will include expanding affordable housing, ensuring 50% of the spending benefits Florida businesses, and potentially building a fifth theme park, retail and office spaces, and 14,000 additional hotel rooms. Disney President Jeff Vahle highlighted that the agreement facilitates significant investments in the resort. This deal follows a settlement in March to end a lawsuit over control of the special district encompassing Walt Disney World.Disney, Florida's DeSantis end spat with deal on 15-year expansion plan | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of in-house judges for adjudicating enforcement actions. This decision could have significant consequences for other federal agencies that employ similar systems. The SEC employs administrative law judges who handle cases referred by the agency's commissioners. These judges conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and make initial decisions on sanctions, which are then reviewed by the commissioners. This process is generally faster and more specialized than federal court proceedings.The challenge originates from George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager fined by the SEC in 2013 for securities fraud. Jarkesy contested the SEC's in-house system, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that these proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. This ruling has prompted the Supreme Court to review the case.During a November hearing, the Supreme Court's conservative justices expressed doubts about the legality of the SEC's in-house system, particularly its exclusion of jury trials for fraud charges. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the constitutionality of depriving individuals of a jury trial based on the government's decision.If the Supreme Court decides to limit or abolish the SEC's in-house courts, it could affect not only the SEC but also other federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These agencies might face slower enforcement actions, increased resource demands, and challenges in targeting misconduct without the use of in-house tribunals.Explainer: What is the US SEC's in-house court under Supreme Court review? | ReutersFirst, some very brief background. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability for civil damages unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. It is intended to protect officials from lawsuits over actions taken in their official capacity, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established laws.Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals told the Ohio Attorney General (AG) to stop blocking a ballot initiative aimed at ending qualified immunity. This initiative arose from widespread public dissatisfaction with various forms of immunity that often protect government employees from lawsuits. Ohio residents have been trying to place a measure on the ballot to eliminate these immunities. However, the Ohio AG, David Yost, has repeatedly refused to certify the proposed amendment, preventing it from advancing.We'll have to see what Ohio decides, but this development could pave the way for similar initiatives in other states. If Ohio successfully places the measure on the ballot and it gains voter approval, it may inspire activists and lawmakers in other jurisdictions to pursue comparable reforms. The outcome in Ohio could set a precedent and generate momentum for a broader movement to reassess and potentially limit qualified immunity across the United States.Sixth Circuit Tells Ohio AG To Stop Blocking Ballot Initiative Calling For End Of Qualified Immunity | Techdirt This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's Hump Day! First, in a pre-taped conversation, Sam speaks with Seth Goldstein, legal counsel for Trader Joe's United & the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), to discuss a recent legal filing by Amazon, Trader Joe's, and SpaceX that alleges that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is unconstitutional. Then, Emma speaks with Dr. Tarek Loubani, associate professor at the University of Western Ontario and leader of the Glia Project, to discuss what is happening on the ground now that hospitals in Gaza are mostly non-operational. First, Emma runs through updates on the US vetoing a UN ceasefire resolution for the THIRD time, Gaza's dire situation, Ukrainian troops, US sanctions on Russia, Trump's legal woes, the FBI's Biden Informant and his foreign connections, SCOTUS attacks, student debt, Starbucks unions, and the murder of a nonbinary child in Oklahoma, before watching Nikki Haley put on her best Hillary Clinton pants(uit) and accuse Trump of Russia-connected authoritarianism. Then, Sam is joined by Sam Goldstein as they dive into the evolution of the legal attacks on the NLRB, beginning with Amazon's objections to the NLRB's role in the Amazon Labor Union elections of 2022, and seeing Elon Musk file suit against the NLRB's constitutionality in the wake of a decision against SpaceX. Next, Goldstein steps back, walking through the establishment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 as an attempt to institutionalize the conflict between labor and management in an attempt to somewhat protect workers' rights, and the near-nonexistent changes in its management (outside of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act) over the following eight decades, despite the overwhelming changes to the labor market with the rise of Tech and the gig economy. After tackling the history of challenges to its unconstitutionality, Seth walks Sam through the three major planks of SpaceX's case – namely: the requirement of good cause for Presidents to remove NLRB judges, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury, and the Board's combination of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Exploring each point, Goldstein tackles the absurdity of each point within the broader operations of the US government, and the devastating impact the case could have on both the NLRB and the administrative state writ large. After discussing SpaceX's attempt to keep this legal battle in Texas, Goldstein wraps up with Trader Joe's similar case coming out of Connecticut, the threat IT poses to the NLRB, and what to expect moving forward. Dr. Tarek Loubani then joins, first parsing through his experience doing humanitarian and medical work in Gaza over the last decade, and touching on his experiences during Gaza's Great March of Return in 2018, which saw thousands of Gazans shot during peaceful and civil demonstrations against their conditions, including Dr. Loubani himself. Next, Loubani assesses the complete devastation of Gaza's medical care during Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of the region, with Israel's active attacks on both medical institutions and medical personnel setting a new standard for depraved warfare, also exploring the harrowing and devastating realities of genocide and apartheid on the ground, from both a medical and broader perspective. Tarek also discusses his experiences at Al-Shifa Hospital, and unpacks the insane claim that Hamas could operate its military out of overpacked and overwhelmed medical centers, before wrapping up by addressing the active culpability and complicity of the West and the need to hold our politicians accountable. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by the great RM Brown as they tackle the NBA All-Star game, watch Norm Finkelstein dunk on Rabbi Shmuley, and touch on some highlights from Rabbi Shmuley's agitprop tape. They also watch Dr. Irfan Galaria reflect on his experiences in Gaza with Joy Reid, and bask in the heckling of genocide-endorsers Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, plus, your IMs! Follow Seth on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/SethGoldstein13 Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Find out more about the Glia Project here: https://glia.org/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out a preview of Janek Ambros's documentary "Ukrainians in Exile" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6HGVL6FJ-U&ab_channel=AssemblyLineEntertainment Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Zippix Toothpicks: Make your lungs happy and try Zippix Nicotine Toothpicks. Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vape and get some nicotine infused toothpicks at https://ZippixToothpicks.com today. Get 10% off your first order by using the code MAJORITY10 at checkout. Your lungs will be glad you did. MUST be 21 or older to order. Warning, nicotine is an addictive chemical. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Jeffrey B. Simon, trial attorney and author of the book 'Last Rights: The Fight to Save the Seventh Amendment.' Discusses the $1.8 billion settlement from Johnson & Johnson related to opioids, and the role of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family in the opioid epidemic. Diving into the larger issue of the dismantling of the civil justice system and the impact of tort reform. The conversation concludes with personal insights from Simon on advice, his first job, and personal views on life.Takeaways  - The $1.8 billion settlement from Johnson & Johnson highlights the harm caused by the overprescription and misleading promotion of opioids.  - Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, is accused of starting the prescription opioid epidemic by overpromoting OxyContin as less addictive and more effective than it actually is.  - The bankruptcy process and the settlement with Purdue Pharma raise questions about the accountability of the Sackler family and the use of bankruptcy protections.  - The civil justice system has been undermined by legislative initiatives and tort reform, which favor corporations over consumer rights and public safety.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background01:25 The Fight to Save the Seventh Amendment03:02 Opioids and the $1.8 Billion Settlement09:06 Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family14:18 Mixed Feelings on the Settlement18:10 The Dismantling of the Civil Justice System19:05 Tort Reform and Political Divide23:43 Rapid Fire QuestionsCheck out www.razreport.com for more episodes!Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-raz-report/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

1. Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment. 2. Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine. 3. Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in most federal civil cases. It does not apply to the states, but most state protect this right in their constitutions. Center for Civic Education

On November 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions are presented – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.Please join us as Margaret A. Little, Counsel of Record on an amicus brief filed by New Civil Liberties Alliance, discusses the case and its developments after oral argument.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate recap the arguments in the hugely important administrative law case, SEC v. Jarkesy. Plus, they welcome Oona Hathaway and Sam Sankar-- two former clerks to the late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor-- to discuss her life and legacy.Read Kate's NYT op ed on Jarkesy: "This Quiet Blockbuster at the Supreme Court Could Affect All Americans"Read Oona Hathaway's NYT op ed on Justice O'Connor, "I Clerked for Justice O'Connor. She Was My Hero, but I Worry About Her Legacy."Read The 19th's reporting on how conservative groups are using the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling to shut down the Abundant Birth Project: "Backlash to affirmative action hits pioneering maternal health program for Black women" Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Administrative Law: Do SEC adjudications violate the Appointments Clause, Non-Delegation Doctrine, and Seventh Amendment? - Argued: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:10:44 EDT

The Supreme Court considers the constitutional right to trial by jury, in a case that involves a $300,000 fine issued via an administrative process at the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. How much could the Justices' decision affect America's sprawling regulatory state, and is there a critical distinction between a citizen's private rights and his so-called public rights? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court returns October 2 for its 2023–2024 Term, and the justices will hear cases on a number of important issues: separation of powers, nondelegation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause, immigration, racial gerrymandering, and more.   For instance, […]