Podcasts about sixth circuits

Garland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the (then standing) Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s authority.The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024.Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence.Featuring:Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent InstituteProf. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco(Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

NCLA has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in Changizi v. HHS, a lawsuit combating the government's unconstitutional assault on freedom of speech. NCLA's petition asks the Court to resolve a circuit split between the Fifth and Sixth Circuits on what plaintiffs must show to satisfy Article III standing in censorship cases against the government. Officials in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have violated the First Amendment by directing social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with HHS's Covid-19 messaging. The petition urges the Court to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling that NCLA clients Mark Changizi, Michael Senger, and Daniel Kotzin lacked standing to challenge the censorship regime that silenced them. Mark and Vec discuss the case in this latest episode. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Garland v. Cargill concerns whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and Administrative Law, the case raises questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the ATF’s authority. Bump stocks are devices attached to semi-automatic firearms to increase the rate of fire. In 2019, the ATF issued a rule that bumpstocks themselves were machineguns, and thus subject to the rules of Title 26, which marked a significant shift in federal policy. Michael Cargill, the owner of Central Texas Gun Works, challenged this reclassification, arguing it was an unconstitutional overreach by the ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Fifth Circuit of Appeals ruled in his favor. A significant circuit split on this issue now exists, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits holding that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits have held that they are. The oral argument in Cargill is set to be heard before the Supreme Court on February 28, 2024.Join us the next day as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The second panel asked "Is Economic Protectionism a Legitimate State Interest?".The Tenth Circuit held in Powers v. Harris that “intra-state economic protectionism, absent a violation of a specific federal statutory or constitutional provision, is a legitimate state interest.” The Second Circuit agrees. In contrast, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have struck down laws aimed at protecting local economic actors as unjustified by state police power. Does a state violate the Equal Protection Clause when it restricts economic liberty for the sole purpose of economic protectionism? For example, is the Equal Protection Clause violated when a state doesn’t make an activity or ownership of a certain type of property per se illegal, but the state employs economic “checkpoints” to significantly discourage the activity or specified property ownership (i.e., guns, pornography, etc.).This panel will also explore the impact of cronyism on emerging technologies and federalism. For example, had Uber and Lyft not been so successful in expeditiously building themselves up before being taken seriously by regulators and traditional industry competitors (i.e., taxi companies), the taxi companies likely could have, and would have, lobbied to pass legislation and create regulations making ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft illegal, or so cost prohibitive as to preclude the ridesharing industry from ever being financially viable. Prof. Paul Bender, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawDr. Yaron Brook, Chairman of the Board, Ayn Rand InstituteProf. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, NYU LawProf. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The second panel asked "Is Economic Protectionism a Legitimate State Interest?".The Tenth Circuit held in Powers v. Harris that “intra-state economic protectionism, absent a violation of a specific federal statutory or constitutional provision, is a legitimate state interest.” The Second Circuit agrees. In contrast, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have struck down laws aimed at protecting local economic actors as unjustified by state police power. Does a state violate the Equal Protection Clause when it restricts economic liberty for the sole purpose of economic protectionism? For example, is the Equal Protection Clause violated when a state doesn’t make an activity or ownership of a certain type of property per se illegal, but the state employs economic “checkpoints” to significantly discourage the activity or specified property ownership (i.e., guns, pornography, etc.).This panel will also explore the impact of cronyism on emerging technologies and federalism. For example, had Uber and Lyft not been so successful in expeditiously building themselves up before being taken seriously by regulators and traditional industry competitors (i.e., taxi companies), the taxi companies likely could have, and would have, lobbied to pass legislation and create regulations making ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft illegal, or so cost prohibitive as to preclude the ridesharing industry from ever being financially viable. Prof. Paul Bender, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawDr. Yaron Brook, Chairman of the Board, Ayn Rand InstituteProf. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, NYU LawProf. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On this episode, we review the the Court's decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, which presented the following questions for review:I. To resolve a split between the Ninth and Sixth Circuits are facial challenges to ordinances and statutes permitted under the Fourth Amendment?II. To resolve a spilt between the Ninth Circuit and the Massachusetts Supreme Court, does a hotel have an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest supplied information is mandated by law and that ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry? If so, is the ordinance facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless it expressly provides for pre-compliance judicial review before the police can inspect the registry?

In the second episode, Bentley Tolk of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless interviews Michael J. Salmanson of Salmanson Goldshaw, PC about some recent cases involving ERISA preemption: Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco, 546 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2008); Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5191 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009); and American Council of Life Insurers v. Ross, No. 08-1406 (6th Cir. Mar. 18, 2009).  Those cases have important implications for ERISA litigation defense - both in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, and in Utah and elsewhere. The second portion of the episode addresses how the lower courts have responded to the Supreme Court's decision in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008).  Specifically, the episode explores the following cases on this topic: Doyle v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2008); andMcCauley v. First Unum Life Insur. Co., 551 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2008).

The issue of whether §7502(c) provides the exclusive means to prove timely filing of a document by a taxpayer is addressed yet again by the courts--and what the Third Circuit had to say, the IRS didn't like hearing.  In the case of Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.-Int'l Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund et al. v. Commissioner, 2008 TNT 74-16 the Third Circuit held that the reports of the death of the common law mailbox rule were, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated.  That places the Third Circuit in the same camp with the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and opposed to the positions of the Second and Sixth Circuits.The materials for this podcast are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-21_Mailbox.pdf.The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.

This PodCast concerns the issue of whether "7502(c) provides the exclusive means to prove timely filing of a document by a taxpayer. What the Third Circuit had to say, the IRS didn't like hearing. In the case of Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.-Int'l Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund et al. v. Commissioner, 2008 TNT 74-16 the Third Circuit held that the reports of the death of the common law mailbox rule were, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. That places the Third Circuit in the same camp with the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and opposed to the positions of the Second and Sixth Circuits. The materials for this podcast are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-21_Mailbox.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast concerns the issue of whether "7502(c) provides the exclusive means to prove timely filing of a document by a taxpayer. What the Third Circuit had to say, the IRS didn't like hearing. In the case of Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.-Int'l Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund et al. v. Commissioner, 2008 TNT 74-16 the Third Circuit held that the reports of the death of the common law mailbox rule were, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. That places the Third Circuit in the same camp with the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and opposed to the positions of the Second and Sixth Circuits. The materials for this podcast are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-21_Mailbox.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast concerns the issue of whether "7502(c) provides the exclusive means to prove timely filing of a document by a taxpayer. What the Third Circuit had to say, the IRS didn't like hearing. In the case of Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.-Int'l Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund et al. v. Commissioner, 2008 TNT 74-16 the Third Circuit held that the reports of the death of the common law mailbox rule were, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. That places the Third Circuit in the same camp with the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and opposed to the positions of the Second and Sixth Circuits. The materials for this podcast are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-21_Mailbox.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast concerns the issue of whether "7502(c) provides the exclusive means to prove timely filing of a document by a taxpayer. What the Third Circuit had to say, the IRS didn't like hearing. In the case of Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.-Int'l Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund et al. v. Commissioner, 2008 TNT 74-16 the Third Circuit held that the reports of the death of the common law mailbox rule were, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. That places the Third Circuit in the same camp with the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and opposed to the positions of the Second and Sixth Circuits. The materials for this podcast are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-21_Mailbox.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast concerns the issue of whether "7502(c) provides the exclusive means to prove timely filing of a document by a taxpayer. What the Third Circuit had to say, the IRS didn't like hearing. In the case of Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.-Int'l Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund et al. v. Commissioner, 2008 TNT 74-16 the Third Circuit held that the reports of the death of the common law mailbox rule were, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. That places the Third Circuit in the same camp with the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and opposed to the positions of the Second and Sixth Circuits. The materials for this podcast are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-21_Mailbox.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com