Podcasts about sixth circuit

On this episode: President Trump has made his first judicial nomination since returning to office, selecting a candidate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Most presidents make few judicial nominations in their first 100 days, and Trump's current pace aligns with historical trends dating back to Reagan. While his first term (and former President Joe Biden's) saw a record number of Article III appointments, Trump's current term began with fewer vacancies across the federal judiciary. Factors like Senate control and long-term court openings shape how many judges are ultimately appointed, and our data shows that the bulk of judicial nominations typically occur in the second and third years of a presidency.Our latest look at federal judicial vacancies: https://ballotpedia.org/The_Federal_Judicial_Vacancy_Count_5/1/2025Subscribe to our newsletter about federal courts and judges: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_Robe_%26_Gavel This year, we're hoping to learn more about our audience and what topics you want us to tackle. Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

Civil Rights: Was the Chili's restaurant chain acting pretextually, when it claimed that a 59 year old manager was fired for not fitting into Chili's "culture"? - Argued: Wed, 28 May 2025 9:57:56 EDT

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will […]

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

President Trump has signed more executive orders in his first 10 days and in his first month in office than any recent president has in their first 100 days. Trump critics say the orders greatly exceed his constitutional authority.Those orders range from tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada, to pauses on foreign aid and crackdowns on illegal immigration to bans on transgender people serving in the military and the use of federal funds for gender-affirming medical care for minors.Court challenges to Trump's policies started on Inauguration Day and have continued at a furious pace since Jan. 20. The administration is facing some 70 lawsuits nationwide challenging his executive orders and moves to downsize the federal government.The Republican-controlled Congress is putting up little resistance, so the court system is ground zero for pushback. Judges have issued more than a dozen orders at least temporarily blocking aspects of Trump's agenda, ranging from an executive order to end U.S. citizenship extended automatically to people born in this country to giving Musk's team access to sensitive federal data.Executive Actions: 108, Executive Orders: 73, Proclamations: 23, Memorandums: 12Mark Brown, Constitutional Law expert and professor at Capital University Law School talks with us about the constitutionality of executive orders. Mark holds Capital's Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Chair. He joined the faculty in 2003 after having taught at Stetson University, the University of Illinois and The Ohio State University.Mark has authored and co-authored works in various books and academic journals, including the Boston College Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the Iowa Law Review, the University of Illinois Law Review, the Ohio State Law Journal, the American University Law Review, and the Oregon Law Review, as well as others. Prior to academia, Mark clerked for the Honorable Harry Wellford, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He also served as a Supreme Court Fellow under the Chief Justice of the United States during the 1993 October Term. Mark's research interests include Constitutional Law and Constitutional Litigation, courses he also teaches. He has also taught Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. His public interest litigation presently focuses on public access to the political process.

Ibriam Kendi is often quoted as saying “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” But is that true? Above the main entrance to the Supreme Court is a promise chiseled into the marble façade, “equal justice under law”. How can we have equal justice under law if one side is always discriminating against another? Enter the case of Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, where Marlean Ames claims she was discriminated in her job because of her sexual orientation. What makes this case uniques is, Ms. Ames is heterosexual, and the Sixth Circuit claimed that ment she had a higher burden of proof than a homosexual.

Fourth Amendment: May Michigan collect blood samples from newborns? - Argued: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:1:33 EDT

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025. Argued by Cameron Norris (on behalf of Parents Defending Education); Elliott Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio (on behalf of Ohio and 22 other states as amici curiae); and Jaime Santos (on behalf of the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, et al.).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech's second amicus brief (in support of reversal): While students may freely identify as having genders that do not correspond to their biological sex, other students enjoy the same right to credit their own perceptions of reality—and to speak their minds when addressing their classmates. Students cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that confesses, accommodates, and conforms to an ideology they reject—even if that ideology's adherents are offended by any refusal to agree with them or endorse their viewpoint. Yet that is what the Olentangy school district's speech code does.“Pronouns are political.” Dennis Baron, What's Your Pronoun? 39 (2020). History shows that people have long used pronouns to express messages about society and its structure—often in rebellion against the prevailing ideology. And the same is true today. Choosing to use “preferred” or “non-preferred” pronouns often “advance[s] a viewpoint on gender identity.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509 (6th Cir. 2021). So mandating that students use “preferred” pronouns or none at all elevates one viewpoint while silencing the other. It compels students to adopt the district's ideology on gender identity while at school, and in doing so, “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).Statement of the Issues, from the Brief of Appellant Parents Defending Education:The use of gender-specific pronouns is a “hot issue” that “has produced a passionate political and social debate” across the country. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508-09 (6th Cir. 2021). One side believes that gender is subjective and so people should use others' “preferred pronouns”; the other side believes that sex is immutable and so people should use pronouns that correspond with biological sex. Id. at 498. Like the general public, students have varying views on this important subject, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Yet the Olentangy Local School District has adopted policies that punish speech expressed by one side of the debate—the use of pronouns that are contrary to another student's identity. The district court upheld the Policies as consistent with the First Amendment and denied PDE's preliminary-injunction motion.The issues presented in this appeal are:Whether the District's speech policies likely violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, discriminate based on viewpoint, prohibit speech based on content without evidence of a substantial disruption, or are overbroad.Whether, if PDE is likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria favor issuing a preliminary injunction.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Brief for Appellant Parents Defending EducationBrief for Appellee Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Supplemental En Banc Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Parents Defending EducationInstitute for Free Speech first amicus brief (in support of rehearing en banc)Institute for Free Speech second amicus brief (in support of reversal)

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a reverse discrimination case when the justices return to the bench at the end of the month.  A heterosexual woman is asking the court to revive her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services where she's worked since 2004 after the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said she hadn't shown the "background circumstances" necessary to take her case to trial. The court didn't just ask for a little bit more evidence, it asked for a lot more, said Xiao Wang, director of the University of Virginia's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who's representing Marlean Ames in her case. Wang and co-counsel Edward Gilbert join Cases and Controversies to discuss the case and what's at stake. Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about Trump's impending trade war and look at the legal doctrine that could stand in the way of his planned tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada.  Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr Produce: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Criminal Procedure: When are campaign contributions bribes? - Argued: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 11:31:36 EDT

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit shares how the relationships she formed throughout her career paved the way for her to become the first woman trial judge of a court of record in Tennessee, followed by distinguished service on both the U.S. District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is the recipient of the Devitt Award, the highest honor awarded to an Article III judge, for significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and improvement of society as a whole. Listen in as Judge Gibbons shares insights gained throughout her trailblazing career.

Today Jim Garrity revisits the headaches caused by examining lawyers who frequently interrupt your deponents' answers. To combat this problem, Garrity offers you a six-pronged strategy for stopping this practice and/or creating a strong record that will allow your deponents to later add materially to their interrupted testimony, whether by errata sheet, affidavit, or live testimony. Courts are far more likely to allow that where you've used Garrity's strategies. (By the way, if you have a moment, would you send our production team a small "thank you" by leaving us a five-star rating wherever you listen to our podcast? It takes just 30 seconds - we timed it! - and it's deeply appreciated. Our crew devotes a great deal of time to research and production, and the podcast is not only free, but also uncluttered by pesky advertising. Thank you so much.)SHOW NOTESIn re Injectafer Prod. Liab. Litig. ALL CASES, No. CV 19-276, 2022 WL 4280491  (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2022) (“Defendants propose. . . changing “It would be one of the—yes” to “It would be one of the sources of information. Yes.” This change is not necessarily inconsistent with the original testimony because it appears that the deponent was cut off or otherwise stopped speaking in the middle of the sentence and is justified as making the answer more complete. See id. While finishing a thought is not necessarily a proper justification for an errata modification, here it appears to be justified and within the flexible scope of the Third Circuit's approach to Rule 30(e)")Grey v.  Amex Assurance Company, 2002 WL 31242195, No. B152467 (Ct. App. Calif. Oct. 7, 2002) (reversing summary judgment in part because trial court abused discretion in failing to consider errata sheet containing “changes. . . made because the witness was interrupted before completing her answers;” further noting that the defendant “. . .took the risk that [the plaintiff's] corrections would bring some of its undisputed facts into controversy”)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 512 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (denying, without prejudice, motion to strike errata sheet, as motion failed to specifically discuss many of the 67 changes defendant wanted stricken; noting that “The reason given for the vast majority of the 67 changes was that [Plaintiff] “did not finish” her answer during the deposition, though the transcript does not reflect that she was interrupted and prevented from doing so,” and outlining how various courts and commentators deal with the extent to which changes to testimony can be made on errata sheets)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, F.R.D. 504, 512, fn. 5 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (noting that, if one looks back at the early origins of the rule on errata sheets, quoted in this opinion, it may be argued that the intent of the drafters was indeed to limit changes to clerical-level mistakes, not to allow substantive changes): "One commentator who examined the history of the rule dating back to the original Equity Rule 67, and the twin Equity Rules 50 and 51 that succeeded it, concluded that Rule 30 was never intended to allow for more than the correction of transcription errors: "Appeals to the plain language of Rule 30(e) are incomplete and misleading without reference to the Rule's transcriptive focus. Read in historical context, the Rule appears to be distinctly clerical, ill-equipped—and never intended—to embrace substantive changes. Although its wording has changed over time, Rule 30(e) has retained one modest but steady focus: the who, how, and what of accurate transcription. The Rule is meant to secure an accurate representation of what was said, leaving to another day (and frequently to the mechanisms of Rule 56) the question of the meaning and implication of the deposition content for purposes of material factual disputes. The common understanding of Rule 30(e) has moved far afield from that mild ambition, giving us the confusion and circuit split we know today. Read in light of its history, the Rule clearly embraces a transcriptive focus. Ruehlmann, Jr., supra, at 915. Rule 30(e)'s counterpart in Illinois state court, Supreme Court Rule 207(a), was amended to limit corrections to transcription errors because the “potential for testimonial abuse” had “become increasingly evident as witnesses submit[ted] lengthy errata sheets in which their testimony [was] drastically altered....” Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 207(a), Rules Committee Comment to Paragraph (a) (1995)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Deposition Dilemmas: Vexatious Scheduling and Errata Sheets, 12 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 60 (1998), for its author's argument that Rule 30(e) permits “opposing counsel, at her choosing, to introduce both versions to the jury”)Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir.2000) (observing, as to changes in errata sheet, that what the witness “tried to do, whether or not honestly, was to change his deposition from what he said to what he meant;” quoting the common refrain that “a deposition is not a take home examination,” the court remarked that while this was a “questionable basis for altering a deposition.” the court would allow the change under Rule 30(e) since the rule expressly “authorizes ‘changes in form or substance'.”Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-895, 2018 WL 1472527 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2018) (refusing, based on Sixth Circuit's strict interpretation of errata sheet changes, to allow “. . .impermissible substantive alterations to Tchankpa's testimony. . .”, including explanations stating “Incomplete; I was cut off,” allegedly because “defense counsel interrupted him;” “In this circuit, a deponent cannot make substantive changes to his deposition testimony under Rule 30(e) based on defense counsel's interruptions. . .”)Hirsch v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) When a party makes changes to his deposition pursuant to Rule 30(e), the original answers remain part of the record. See Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he rule requires that the original transcript be retained (it is implicit in the provision of that rule that any changes made by the deponent are to be appended to the transcript) so that the trier of fact can evaluate the honesty of the alteration.”); Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (“Subject to the rules of evidence, the jury is permitted to hear the original answer, the change, and the reasons for the change and decide – in the context of all the other evidence – whether to credit either answer and what weight to assign it.”); Coleman v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 997 F. Supp. 1197, 1205 (D. Ariz. 1998) (accepting the argument that “a change in a deposition statement does not eradicate the deponent's original answers”); Lugtig v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641-42 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (“Nothing in the language of Rule 30(e) requires or implies that the original answers are to be stricken when changes are made.”). The reason for this is obvious: “[t]he Rule is less likely to be abused if the deponent knows that ... the original answers[,] as well as the changes and the reasons will be subject to examination by the trier of fact")Hirsh v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) (court-ordered second deposition of plaintiff did not extend deadline for submitting errata sheet following delivery of transcript from first deposition; counsel claimed he “believed that the first deposition did not ‘count,' because it was ordered [to] be redone, and therefore corrections were reserved”; errata sheet rejected as untimely)Neutrion Dev. Corp. v. Sonosite, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 529, 550 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (allowing and considering – without apparent challenge or concern – expert's substantive changes to errata sheet, necessitated “. . . [because he] began to explain the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess, but was interrupted by Neutrino's counsel”)Trout v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 339 F. App'x 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting argument made by defendant that plaintiff “. . . is not entitled to benefit from her corrected deposition testimony because her counsel did not rehabilitate her statements during the deposition,” meaning plaintiff's counsel could and should have asked followup questions while the deposition was in progress)Bahrami v. Maxie Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-4483-SCJ-AJB, 2014 WL 11517837, at fn. 2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2014) (Although Plaintiff's brief in response to Defendant's objections discusses a long day and interruptions by Defendant's counsel during the deposition, those reasons were not provided in the errata sheet. The Court also notes that if Defendant's counsel interrupted Plaintiff such that he could not elaborate much as he wished, Plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity afterwards to examine her client on those points and did not do so.”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(B) (federal rule of civil procedure on errata sheets, which expressly contemplates possible changes in form or substance)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (requiring objections not just to evidentiary issues but to a party's conduct, to the manner of taking the deposition, and to any other aspect of the deposition)Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B)(i) (requiring objections to errors or irregularities at an oral examination if they relate to the manner of taking the deposition, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time)

The “disparate impact” approach to civil rights enforcement makes it presumptively illegal to use selection criteria that result in statistical disparities based on, inter alia, race or ethnicity. It is no defense that the use of a challenged criterion had no discriminatory motive; the only defense is if its use meets some “necessity” standard. The inevitable result is to encourage race-based decision-making when selection criteria are chosen and implemented. Yet using this approach is widespread and found in numerous statutes and regulations. Given the Supreme Court’s decision striking down racial preferences in SFFA v. Harvard, what impact will this have on the disparate-impact approach?Featuring:Mr. Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights ProjectMr. Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal FoundationHon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of LawModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Last term, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi, which built upon the text-first, history-second methodology articulated by the Supreme Court in Heller and reaffirmed in Bruen. Many hot button Second Amendment issues are percolating through the lower courts and are likely to reach this Supreme Court in the coming terms. This panel will discuss Rahimi's impact on the text and history methodology as applied to legal challenges to "gun free zones", bans on semi-automatic rifles and "high capacity" magazines, age restrictions, and restrictions on misdemeanants. The panel will also discuss several important methodological issues that are common to many Second Amendment litigations, including the debate whether 1791 or 1868 is the correct time to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.Featuring:Prof. William Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of LawMr. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment ChannelMr. David Thompson, Partner, Cooper & KirkModerator: Hon. Amul Thapar, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Tennessee v. Cardona concerns the Biden Administration’s recent revisions to regulations under Title IX.Particularly at issue are those provisions that redefine the term "sex" to include "gender identity" for purposes of the regulation. Six states, including Tennessee, along with an association of Christian educators and a female high-school student sued, alleging the regulation as amended threatened student privacy, safety, and free speech." They also sought an injunction to stop the full rule from going into effect based on the immediate and irreparable harm they argued it would cause. The District Court granted an injunction and the government’s request to stay the injunction was granted by the Sixth Circuit. The Supreme Court also denied the government’s application for a stay of the injunction. The case is now being argued on the merits.Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring:Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General(Moderator) Samuel D. Adkisson, Associate, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

The Sixth Circuit clearly determined Maryville Baptist Church and its pastor are entitled to prevailing party status. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

In this case, the court considered this issue: May a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause?     The case was decided on June 20, 2024.  The Supreme Court held that pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice, the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. First, the Court considered the Fourth Amendment issue. A Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim can proceed even when a baseless charge is accompanied by a valid charge. This is because a pretrial detention must be based on probable cause, and if an invalid charge causes a detention to start or continue, the Fourth Amendment is violated, even if a valid charge also exists. Second, looking at the common law tort of malicious prosecution, which was analogous to Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims when §1983 was enacted. Historical evidence shows that courts assessed probable cause on a charge-by-charge basis, and a plaintiff could bring a malicious prosecution claim for groundless charges even if they were coupled with well-founded ones. Based on these two lines of reasoning, the Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's categorical rule that barred Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims if any charge was valid and concluded that courts should evaluate such suits on a charge-by-charge basis. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined, reiterating Justice Alito's prior opinion (in which Justice Thomas joined) that a “malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on the Fourth Amendment.” Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that nothing in the language of the Fourth Amendment supports a malicious prosecution claim. 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

Administrative Law: May the FCC impose Net Neutrality by reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers? - Argued: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 9:49:39 EDT

Civil Rights: Does a school violate Title IX if it permits students to use bathrooms that conform to their gender identity? - Argued: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 9:46:36 EDT

Episode 20: Moms for Liberty v. Wilson County Board of Education Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al. v. Wilson County Board of Education, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Jane Branstetter Stranch, Amul R. Thapar, and Eric E. Murphy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 29, 2024. Argued by Brett R. Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech (on behalf of Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al.) and Christopher C. Hayden (on behalf of the Wilson County Board of Education, et al.). Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for the Appellants: 1. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's policy requiring that speakers announce their address during the Board's public-comment period violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's policy prohibiting “abusive” speech during its public-comment period violates the First Amendment. 3. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's requirement that individuals who want to speak on non-agenda items during the public-comment period prove their comments are “in the public interest” violates the First Amendment. 4. Whether the Wilson County Board of Education's partial voluntary cessation moots Plaintiffs' challenges to the Board's policies. 5. Whether the Wilson County Board of Education's partial voluntary cessation prevents a finding of irreparable harm. 6. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the address rule, the abusive-speech rule, and the public-interest rule. Resources: Opening Brief for the Appellants Brief of Appellees Institute for Free Speech case page (includes additional case documents and information) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

This week, we're spotlighting the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) decision to withdraw from a federal labor pact; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) report on alleged underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related jobs; and an appellate court's affirmation of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) McLaren Macomb decision.  FTC Exits Federal Labor Pact On September 27, 2024, the FTC announced its decision to withdraw from the antitrust merger agreement with three other federal agencies that it had signed in August. EEOC Alleges Significant Underrepresentation in High-Tech Sector  The EEOC recently issued a report that purports to show substantial underrepresentation of Black, Hispanic, and female workers across 56 STEM-related jobs.  Sixth Circuit Enforces NLRB Ruling on Severance Agreements In a per curiam ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the NLRB's controversial McLaren Macomb decision.  Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw363 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Lindke v Freed. In this case, the court considered this issue: When does a public official's social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment? The case was decided on March 15, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official's social-media page engages in state action under 42 U-S-C § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against a person “who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State” deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Thus, to establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show actions attributable to a state, not those of a private person. Sometimes, state action is clear, but other times, the line between private conduct and state action is more difficult to draw. State officials retain their own First Amendment rights to speak about their jobs as private citizens. To determine whether an official was acting in an official capacity or as a private citizen on social media, courts must look at factors like whether the account was designated as personal or official, whether individual posts expressly invoked the official's state authority, and the immediate legal effect of the posts. Additional contextual factors like the official's use of government staff to make posts may also be relevant in unclear cases. Because the U-S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied a different test, the Court vacated its judgment and remanded the case. 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

The Destiny's Child of constitutional law (aka Strict Scrutiny) is back on Getting Curious to help us digest and dissect all the wack-a-doodle nonsense that is: Project 2025. Leah Litman & Kate Shaw from the hit podcast Strict Scrutiny sat down with JVN to really parse out the MAGA manifesto. We're talking all about Project 2025's hallmark proposals, the key players involved, as well as tossing in some Supreme Court, Alito/Thomas Updates for good measure. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Our senior producer is Chris McClure. Our editor & engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Former video editor claims he was fired for failing to follow Ramsey's faith-based beliefs on how to deal with COVID-19 pandemic. By Bob Smietana for Religion News Service A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of a former employee who claimed Ramsey Solutions, the company run by Christian personal finance guru Dave Ramsey, discriminated against him during the COVID-19 pandemic. Brad Amos, a former video editor at the Franklin, Tennessee-based company, sued Ramsey Solutions in 2021, saying he was fired for not agreeing with Ramsey's faith-based views about how to respond to the pandemic. During the pandemic, Dave Ramsey downplayed the risk of COVID-19, referred to those who wear masks as “wusses,” barred employees from working at home and said his company would be guided by faith not fear. Amos' attorneys alleged that at the Lampo Group — which does business as Ramsey Solutions — wearing a mask or social distancing was seen as “against the will of God,” and employees were required to agree with Ramsey's beliefs about the pandemic. Attorneys for Amos also claimed that his faith, including Amos' belief in the so-called Golden Rule — doing unto others as you would have them do unto you — required him to mask, social distance and comply with other CDC recommendations during the pandemic. His insistence on doing so, Amos alleged, led to his firing. “Amos says that his termination was based on his failure to submit to Lampo's religious practices and his expression of his own religious beliefs with regard to COVID measures. These facts form the basis for Amos's religious-discrimination claims,” according to a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District. Amos' attorney also claimed that Ramsey Solutions had committed fraud by allegedly lying to him about the “cult-like” atmosphere at the company. In December, a U.S. District Court had dismissed both the discrimination and fraud claims before they went to trial, saying Amos had failed to show he was discriminated against. In the lower court ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson wrote that “it is not enough that a plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs do not align with the religious beliefs that underlie the employment policy (requirement) that the plaintiff was terminated for non- complying with. Instead, the plaintiff needs to have alleged a religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement,” Richardson wrote. On Thursday (Aug. 8), the Sixth Circuit ruled that the district court had erred in dismissing Amos' discrimination claim. The court ruled that federal law protects employees from discrimination based on “religious non-conformity” — also known as reverse discrimination, or requiring an employee to follow a religious belief or practice. The Sixth Circuit Court also ruled that a belief in the Golden Rule qualified as a religious claim and was protected from discrimination. During the appeal, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a friend of the court brief, urging the appeals court to reverse the lower court ruling — saying Amos had made a plausible claim for religious discrimination. The EEOC also argued that the term “reverse religious discrimination” was not accurate and said the term “religious non-conformity” was more accurate in cases like the one involving Amos. “As with all other types of religious-discrimination claims, the employer is accused of discriminating against the employee on the basis of religion,” the EEOC wrote. “Here, however, it is the employer's religion that is the focus. But that doesn't make the discrimination ‘reverse.'” “We're happy with the result and look forward to the opportunity to continue fighting for our client,” Jonathan Street, an attorney for Amos, told RNS in a statement. The case will now return to the lower district court for trial. Ramsey Solutions did not respond to a request for comment.

In Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (2018), the Sixth Circuit declared unconstitutional Tennessee's law capping punitive damages based on the Tennessee constitution. But in the wake of Lindenberg, Tennessee state courts continue to reduce punitive damage awards in reliance on the statutory cap because the Tennessee Supreme Court has not […]

In Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (2018), the Sixth Circuit declared unconstitutional Tennessee’s law capping punitive damages based on the Tennessee constitution. But in the wake of Lindenberg, Tennessee state courts continue to reduce punitive damage awards in reliance on the statutory cap because the Tennessee Supreme Court has not directly addressed the law’s constitutionality. And in a case on a different statutory damages cap, the Tennessee Supreme Court indicated it likely would have disagreed with the Sixth Circuit. McClay v. Airport Mgmt Svcs, 596 S.W.3d 686, 693 n.6 (Tenn. 2020)Federal court certification of state law questions to state high courts is a thorny issue with competing concerns. All states but North Carolina permit certification, but the federal courts control which questions presented in the case it certifies for resolution. State courts are free to decline to answer the questions certified and to do so after a period of months, as happened in Lindenberg. Some experts point out that even when the state court chooses to answer the questions certified, the process can be time consuming and inefficient.Our panel will explore the issues of federalism, efficiency, and prudence presented when considering the question certification process between federal and state courts.Featuring:Hon. Rachel Wainer Apter, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New JerseyHon. Benjamin Beaton, United States District Court for the Western District of KentuckyHon. Sarah Keeton Campbell, Justice, Supreme Court of TennesseeModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One---To register, click the link above.

Judge Amul Roger Thapar serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and is a Distinguished Teaching Scholar with the CCCG at Notre Dame. He is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar will be speaking on his newly released book, "The People's Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him." This is a Napa Institute Forum at Notre Dame lecture, and is co-sponsored by Notre Dame Law School and ND Law School's Program on Constitutional Structure. Learn more about Notre Dame's Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government: https://constudies.nd.edu/ *** The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the University of Notre Dame, the College of Arts and Letters, or the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government. Recorded August 29, 2023 at the University of Notre Dame

Join us for a webinar featuring Manhattan Institute fellow Tim Rosenberger, who will delve into the landmark case of Hile v. Michigan. On November 6th, 2023, the Sixth Circuit upheld Michigan’s Blaine Amendment, which bars public financial support for parochial and other nonpublic schools, raising significant questions about religious discrimination and equal protection under the […]

Join us for a webinar featuring Manhattan Institute fellow Tim Rosenberger, who will delve into the landmark case of Hile v. Michigan. On November 6th, 2023, the Sixth Circuit upheld Michigan's Blaine Amendment, which bars public financial support for parochial and other nonpublic schools, raising significant questions about religious discrimination and equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs filed a petition of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that these so-called "neutral" amendments often mask deep-seated biases, as evidenced by Michigan's historical animosity towards Catholic schools.Learn about the broader implications for religious freedom, the precedent set by recent Supreme Court decisions, and the potential ripple effects across other states with similar provisions. Don’t miss this opportunity to understand the constitutional arguments and engage in a pivotal discussion on the future of educational rights and religious liberties in America.Featuring:Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of labor and administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The question before the Supreme Court, however, was not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use?The Court heard oral argument in the case on April 23, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued its decision, vacating the decision of the Sixth Circuit and remanding it for further proceedings. Justice Thomas wrote the decision for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson wrote an opinion dissenting in part, concurring in part, and concurring in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.Featuring:G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

This Day in Legal History: Narcotic Control Act Becomes LawOn July 18, 1956, the Narcotic Control Act became law, significantly transforming the landscape of narcotics regulation in the United States. The Act was introduced to combat the growing concerns about drug abuse and trafficking. It imposed harsher penalties for violations of existing drug laws, including mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty for certain repeat offenders. The Act expanded federal control over the use, possession, and sale of narcotic drugs and marijuana, aiming to curb the rising tide of addiction and illegal drug activities. This legislation marked a pivotal shift towards more stringent drug policies, reflecting the era's intensifying war on drugs. Enforcement was also bolstered, granting law enforcement agencies greater authority to tackle drug-related crimes. For better or worse, the Narcotic Control Act laid the groundwork for future drug legislation and enforcement strategies, significantly influencing the country's approach to drug control for decades to come.U.S. prosecutors have appealed a federal judge's decision to dismiss the criminal case against Donald Trump regarding the retention of classified documents post-presidency. Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, was deemed unlawfully appointed by Judge Aileen Cannon. Cannon, a Trump appointee, ruled that Garland did not have Congressional authorization to appoint Smith with such extensive powers. This ruling has favored Trump, who is the Republican candidate for the upcoming presidential election. Trump's campaign called for the dismissal of all four criminal cases against him following this decision. Cannon's ruling dismissed charges against Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who were accused of obstructing the investigation. Trump had been indicted in other cases, including a New York conviction related to hush money payments and charges in Georgia over election interference. The appeal is directed to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where many judges were appointed by Trump.Prosecutors appeal Trump classified documents case dismissal | ReutersThe espionage trial of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich resumed yesterday July 17, 2024, in Yekaterinburg, Russia, with witness testimonies heard behind closed doors. Gershkovich, accused of spying for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, faces up to 20 years in prison. Arrested in March 2023, he has been held in Moscow's Lefortovo prison since then. Both Gershkovich and his employer, as well as the U.S. government, deny the allegations, asserting that he was simply performing his duties as an accredited journalist. The Wall Street Journal has criticized the trial as a sham and continues to advocate for his release. Russian authorities claim to have irrefutable evidence of his espionage activities, though specifics have not been disclosed. The trial is closed to the press, a standard procedure in Russia for cases involving treason or espionage. U.S. officials view Gershkovich and another detained American, Paul Whelan, as bargaining chips for a potential prisoner exchange, with President Putin indicating openness to such negotiations. The trial will continue on Friday with arguments from the respective lawyers.Russian trial of detained US reporter Gershkovich hears witness testimony in secret | ReutersThe Biden administration announced the testing of 17 new climate technologies in federal buildings, part of a $9.6 million initiative aimed at advancing near-commercial climate tech. The General Services Administration (GSA), which oversees federal properties, will facilitate these real-world trials. The effort aligns with the administration's broader goal to reduce carbon emissions across federal facilities. The GSA will select testing sites by the end of the year, with evaluations concluding in 2026.Technologies include Armstrong World Industries' ceiling tiles that manage heat, Brightcore Energy's compact geothermal drilling rigs, and Gridscape's modular microgrid systems. Other innovations involve Nostromo Energy's ice storage cooling systems, SafeTraces' air quality mapping using DNA-tagged particles, Moxion Power's portable battery systems, and Lamarr.AI's drones for building audits.Successful technologies will be connected with energy service companies (ESCOs) through a unique matchmaking session to drive scalability. GSA administrator Robin Carnahan emphasized that the program supports market demand rather than picking winners, suggesting that the adoption of these technologies will persist regardless of potential administrative changes. The initiative aims to demonstrate the practical benefits and cost savings of these advanced climate technologies.US Taps Federal Buildings to Test Next-Generation Climate TechThe Biden administration's effort to strengthen protections for gay and transgender students under Title IX remains blocked in ten states following rulings from the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals. The rulings represent a significant setback for President Biden's transgender rights initiatives, as the appeals courts indicated the rule might be unconstitutional.In the Sixth Circuit, Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton upheld a district court's injunction against the rule in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court argued that the rule's definition of sex discrimination likely exceeded the Education Department's authority. This decision prevents these states from implementing the rule, which includes provisions like using preferred pronouns and allowing students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity.Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit upheld a separate injunction for Louisiana, Mississippi, Idaho, and Montana. This ruling came after the Department of Education failed to convince the court that delaying the rule would cause irreparable harm. The court noted that enforcing the rule could impose significant administrative costs and legal uncertainties on these states.The rulings underscore the ongoing legal battles over expanding Title IX protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, with conservative states challenging the federal government's authority in this domain. These setbacks come after a similar injunction was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in June, affecting federal guidance documents related to LGBTQ+ student rights.The Biden administration's rule, set to take effect on August 1, 2024, is now blocked in multiple states, with ongoing litigation likely to continue influencing the rule's future. The cases in question are Tennessee v. Cardona and Louisiana v. US Department of Education.Block on Biden Trans Rights Rule Upheld by 2 Appeals Courts (1) 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

Questions a sane society needs to be asking right now. What will the passing of President Carter do for optics in the 2024 Presidential Election? Two illegal aliens in Houston, Texas have today been accused of murdering a 12-year-old girl after her body was found in a creek on Monday. Seth plays a clip of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) from today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on President Biden's nomination of Karla Campbell to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nicholas Somberg v. Karen McDonald, argued before Senior Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge Amul R. Thapar, and Judge Andre B. Mathis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 12, 2024. Argued by Philip L. Ellison (on behalf of Nicholas Somberg) and Brooke E. Tucker (on behalf of Karen McDonald). Statement of Question Presented, from the Appellant's Brief: Plaintiff Nicholas Somberg contends he (and others) have the First Amendment right to photograph, screenshot, audio/video record, broadcast, report, distribute, share, and make public photographic, audio, and audio-video recordings of public court proceedings being livestreamed worldwide when doing such does not interact or cause any interaction with pending proceedings. The question presented is: Whether the First Amendment protects the making of digital records (i.e. photographic and audio-video recordings) of public court proceedings from online streaming services being broadcasted worldwide when doing so does not in any way interfere with pending judicial proceedings? Resources: CourtListener case docket for Somberg v. McDonald The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

A catholic school's ability to operate in accordance with its faith is in jeopardy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel on Tuesday, June 11. The case involves a Catholic school in Michigan that is asking the court to protect its ability to hire staff who align with its faith.The Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted a state civil rights statute's definition of sex in July 2022 to include sexual orientation without any exemption for religious organizations. In March 2023, the Michigan legislature wrote this into state law, expressly prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation or gender identity. The school's right to hire staff who hold its views on marriage and gender is at risk. St. Joseph's asks all staff to be practicing Catholics and uphold the faith. Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Will Haun argued the case before the Sixth Circuit Court on June 11. He joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss what the case means for Christian institutions nationwide. Enjoy! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A catholic school's ability to operate in accordance with its faith is in jeopardy.   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel on Tuesday, June 11. The case involves a Catholic school in Michigan that is asking the court to protect its ability to hire staff […]

Free Speech: May the Libertarian Party prevent a dissident faction from using the party name and branding? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:34:12 EDT

Religious Liberty: Can a Christian medical center enjoin the government from enforcing anti-bias laws against it for refusing to facilitate "gender affirming care"? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:38:40 EDT

Religious Liberty: May a religious organization mount a pre-enforcement challenge to an anti-discrimination law that protects transgender individuals? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:44:23 EDT

Religious Liberty: May a religious parish challenge anti-discrimination laws that aim to protect transgender individuals? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:41:4 EDT

National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc on June 12, 2024. Argued by Noel J. Francisco on behalf of the NRSC and Jason Hamilton on behalf of the FEC. The Question of Constitutionality Certified by the ⁠District Court⁠: Do the limits on coordinated party expenditures in § 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 30116, violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37? Resources: ⁠FEC case page docket for NRSC, et al. v. FEC, et al.⁠ ⁠Institute for Free Speech amicus brief⁠ The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

[05:52] Listener question from YouTube: What are the correct vehicles to challenge the registry other than declaratory judgment? [21:57] A listener on federal supervision in Ohio was denied internet access by their PO, impacting job searches, healthcare, and education. This appears to be a district-wide issue. Can this policy be challenged given the necessity of […]

Professor Cass Sunstein and Judge Raymond Kethledge will open the symposium with a fireside chat exploring the conceptual question of why states choose to separate powers along with the relationship between the separation of powers and the rule of law.FeaturingHon. Raymond M. Kethledge, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Cass R. Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law School

Civil Rights: When a SWAT team destroys an innocent person's property, is the government liable for compensation? - Argued: Thu, 09 May 2024 12:9:21 EDT

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of Labor and Administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The employees received disciplinary action and ultimately lost their jobs in the wake of their involvement in a unionization effort. In the following investigation, the NLRB found that there was reasonable cause to believe Starbucks had acted in retaliation against protected unionization efforts. A district court issued a temporary injunction and required the 7 former employees to be reinstated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal, concluding the NLRB had satisfied its burden in showing there was "reasonable cause" that Starbucks had violated the National Labor Relations Act and thus the NLRB could use its remedial power. Starbucks appealed again and the case was heard by the Supreme Court on April 23, 2023.The question before the Supreme Court, however, is not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the NLRA, but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the NLRB needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use?Join us as we break down and analyze this interesting case and the Oral Argument in the days following the argument before the Court.Featuring:Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Professor Easha Anand, co-director of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, joins Professors Pam Karlan and Richard Thompson Ford, along with Gareth Fowler, JD '24, for a discussion about three cases that she argued before the Court this term, the people behind the case titles, and what it takes to represent them at the highest court in the land. Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Easha Anand >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Setting the StageEasha Anand shares the story of Mr. Ciavarini and the impact of the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic on restoring his reputation. Hosts Rich Ford and Pam Karlan introduce the episode and guests Professor Easha Anand and Gareth Fowler, discussing their work with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.(00:01:52) Chapter 2: Joining the Clinic and the Clinic's Unique ApproachGareth Fowler describes his experience joining the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and the process of working on cases as a student. Easha Anand explains the distinctive features of the clinic's model, emphasizing the significant role of students in producing legal work.(00:05:38) Chapter 3: Working on Cases and the Sarbanes-Oxley CaseGareth Fowler discusses the specific cases he worked on during his time at the clinic, including Mendez-Colleen and United States v. Jackson. Easha Anand recounts her experience arguing the case of Murray v. UBS before the Supreme Court and the significance of the outcome for whistleblower protection.(00:15:52) Chapter 4: Insights from Oral ArgumentsEasha Anand reflects on the differences between arguing cases at lower courts versus the Supreme Court, emphasizing the unique challenges and opportunities of Supreme Court advocacy.(00:18:16) Chapter 5: Clinic's Trip to D.C.Gareth Fowler shares his experience attending Supreme Court oral arguments in Washington, D.C., providing insights into the courtroom dynamics and the significance of the proceedings.(00:20:27) Chapter 6: Preparing for Future Cases and Impactful MomentsEasha Anand discusses the upcoming case of Chiavarini and the journey of preparing for oral arguments, highlighting the client's story and the clinic's commitment to justice. Pam Karlan and Easha Anand reflect on the profound impact of their work with clients and the meaningful experiences shared during their collaboration with the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic.[00:24:23] Chapter 7: Audience Question and Answer

Welcome back to another episode of the How I Lawyer Podcast, where Professor Jonah Perlin interviews lawyers about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. Today's guest is Michelle Kallen, who is a Partner in Jenner & Block's Supreme Court and Appellate practice and previously served as the seventh Solicitor General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.  After graduating from Vanderbilt University Law School, Michelle clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and then worked as a Litigation Associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, before moving to the public sector.  Following her service as the first woman Solicitor General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Michelle represented the Select Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. In this episode, Michelle shares valuable insights about the legal profession including:

One of the biggest news stories in October 1934 was the kidnapping of Alice Speed Stoll from her home in Louisville, Kentucky. Seven days later she was set free but her kidnapper remained on the run. Who kidnapped Alice and why? Want more Southern Mysteries? Support this independent podcast on Patreon. Learn more and join today at patreon.com/southernmysteries   Episode Sources Money for Mrs. Stoll Is Ready Authorities Refuse to Reveal ‘Definite Leads'. Healdsburg Tribune, Number 290, 11 October 1934. (Viewed April 2020)   Robinson v. United States, 144 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1944). US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 144 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1944), July 31, 1944 (Viewed April 2020) The bizarre story of a kidnapped Louisville heiress held captive in Indianapolis, IndyStar.com. (Viewed April 2020) Video out takes with family spokesperson, University of South Carolina Libraries Digital Collections. (Viewed April 2020) Robinson, Stoll, Kidnapper, Caught, The Indianapolis times. October 17, 1934 (Viewed April 2020) Joyful After Kidnap Acquittal, Healdsburg Tribune, October 24, 1935. (Viewed April 2020) Episode Music Alone with My Thoughts by Esther Abrami. Licensed under Creative Commons   

Wednesday, November 8th, 2023Today, in the Hot Notes: voters take to the polls in Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Texas; Jack Smith says in a filing that it doesn't matter whether Trump believed he lost the 2020 election; a group of conservative lawyers has launched the Society For The Rule of Law to counter the MAGA movement; Ivanka Trump will take the stand today in the NYAG $250M civil fraud trial; the Biden Administration is joining the trans plaintiffs in Tennessee and Kentucky urging SCOTUS to overturn the Sixth Circuit's ban on transgender care; Hunter Biden special counsel David Weiss testified behind closed doors in Congress; President Biden gets Netanyahu to be open to humanitarian pauses in Gaza; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Promo CodeTo learn more about microdosing THC go to microdose.com and use code DAILYBEANS  to get free shipping & 30% off your first order.How We Win The House 2024!https://swingleft.org/fundraise/howwewin2024Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodhttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily BeansFrom the Good Newshttps://www.etsy.com/shop/KnitWithTheWindhttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/black-white-and-blue-in-the-south/id1699503335

Hello, AO listeners! This episode is a little bit different. Your regular hosts, Sarah and David, are unavailable—Sarah on parental leave, David on the road—so I (David Lat) have conscripted my husband, lawyer and legal commentator Zachary Baron Shemtob, to serve as guest of a guest. Zach shares his (strong) opinions on two hot topics, the Trump gag order and AO listeners' favorite subject, text/history/tradition. We also cover a noteworthy Sixth Circuit case about the retroactivity of the First Step Act and the big Google antitrust trial. We hope you enjoy this very special episode. Sarah and David will be back next week. Show notes: -Kevin and David French on Dispatch Live: Ask Me Anything -United States v. Carpenter (6th Cir. on retroactivity of First Step Act): -In Its First Monopoly Trial of Modern Internet Era, U.S. Sets Sights on Google: -The Google Trial Is Going to Rewrite Our Future: -David and Zach on Original Jurisdiction: -Cruel and Unusual: A Podcast on Punishment Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's better than one constitutional law expert? THREE! This spring we had the honor of speaking with Professor Melissa Murray about the Supreme Court's recent term. Now she's back, with her brilliant Strict Scrutiny co-hosts, Professors Leah Litman and Kate Shaw. They join Jonathan to discuss WTF is going on with the Supreme Court these days—from Clarence Thomas' luxury vacations to what the nation's highest court has in store for us this fall. Plus, an epic round of judicial-themed F*ck, Marry, Kill… You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Melissa is on Twitter and Instagram @profmmurray. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Melissa Murray is a Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, where she teaches constitutional law, family law, criminal law, and reproductive rights and justice and writes about the legal regulation of intimate life. Melissa clerked for Judge Stefan Underhill on the District of Connecticut and for Justice Sotomayor when she served on the Second Circuit. When she's not reading the SCOTUS tea leaves, she's practicing the violin, reading People magazine, and keeping up with Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Find books from Getting Curious guests at bookshop.org/shop/curiouswithjvn. Our executive producer is Erica Getto. Our producer is Chris McClure. Our associate producer is Allison Weiss. Our engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Samantha Martinez, and Anne Currie. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices