Podcasts about stephanos bibas

As international courts have addressed issues arising from the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars, we will explore whether engagement with the ICC and ICJ institutions is beneficial or harmful to the United States and how U.S. policymakers should approach these courts.Feature:Hon. Charles Brower, Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Arbitrator Member, Twenty Essex ChambersProf. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs, Notre Dame Law School; Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights ClinicProf. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University LawProf. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law and Professor of the Practice of Political Science, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit discusses the importance of storytelling to deliver judgments that are fair, impartial and grounded in law. (University of Virginia School of Law, April 5, 2024)

It has been said that American-style split sovereignty provides the people a “double security” for their liberties. And a distinct security too: where the Framers’ primary restraint on the avarice of the United States was the enumeration of its powers, each state is omnipotent and yet typically bound by a thicker conception of the proper ends of government. But these separate sovereigns interact in unique and sometimes puzzling ways that leave the state of the vertical separation of powers in flux. And given that “split[ting] the atom of sovereignty,” as Justice Kennedy characterized it in US Term Limits v. Thornton, is a uniquely American contribution, is it really necessary to secure the people’s liberty?FeaturingProf. Maureen Brady, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law and Deputy Dean, Harvard Law SchoolHon. Sarah K. Campbell, Justice, Tennessee Supreme CourtHon. James E. Tierney, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School and former Attorney General, MaineProf. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

For news about this oral argument to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see https://reorg.com/ftx-examiner-appointment-appeal/.Third Circuit Hears Argument in FTX Examiner Appointment Appeal; Parties Spar Over Whether Statute Is Mandatory, Sullivan & Cromwell Potential Conflicts of InterestWed 11/08/2023 18:48 PMA three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument today in the appeal in the FTX Group cases by the Office of the U.S. Trustee of a bankruptcy court order denying its motion for the appointment of an examiner. The panel, consisting of Judges Luis Felipe Restrepo, Stephanos Bibas and Anthony Joseph Scirica, took the appeal under advisement without indicating the timing of their decision. The FTX Group debtors are seeking to confirm a plan in June 2024 and targeting a July 2024 effective date.The appeal was certified by U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly in the absence of controlling precedent regarding whether the appointment of an examiner is mandatory if the debt threshold in section 1104(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code is met. The statute provides that a bankruptcy court “shall” appoint an examiner to investigate the debtor “as is appropriate” if the UST or a party makes such a request and the debtors' fixed, liquidated, general unsecured debts exceed $5 million. The UST's mandatory interpretation of the statute is challenged by the FTX group debtors and the official committee of unsecured creditors, which argue that the appointment of an examiner is discretionary.Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey found that he had discretion to deny the UST's request for an examiner, citing to the “as is appropriate” phrase in the statute as the operative language. He decided that appointing an examiner would result in substantial costs and duplicate the parallel FTX investigations by the debtors, the UCC, federal prosecutors, regulators and Congress and thus denied the request...[for more see https://reorg.com/ftx-examiner-appointment-appeal/]

Although a creature of statute, American antitrust law functions in practice as a field of common law. Courts have had the preeminent role in shaping the contours of its application, imposing the “rule of reason” and defining concepts like competition and the use of economic evidence. While antitrust precedents are closely examined by practitioners and academics alike, less attention is paid to whether the developments in antitrust law over the last century are consistent with the text of the antitrust laws. This panel will discuss the meaning of the antitrust texts, how or whether current law is consistent with the plain meaning of the statutes, and what that means for antitrust policy going forward.Featuring:Prof. Daniel A. Crane, Richard W. Pogue Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolMr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller PostmanMs. Doha Mekki, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of JusticeMr. Bilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedomModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitOverflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) is a nonpartisan association founded in 1907 that facilitates interaction among the 56 state and territory attorneys general.” The organization’s website reflects that it, “provides a community for attorneys general and their staff to collaboratively address issues important to their work, as well as training and resources to support attorneys general in protecting the rule of law and the United States Constitution.” In 2021 NAAG received $15 million from the McKinsey opioid settlement and it currently holds more than $280 million in assets.In recent years some have called into question NAAG’s leadership and programming and have publicly sought greater transparency prior to receiving, holding, and expending certain kinds of funds from state lawsuit litigation. Does NAAG need structural reform to assuage concerns? Are additional safeguards necessary to ensure the proper stewardship of litigation proceeds?Featuring:Mr. Oramel H. Skinner III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersMr. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, State of TennesseeMr. Chris Toth, Former Executive Director, National Association of Attorneys GeneralModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Nearly fifty years ago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn released the text of a four-page essay titled Live Not By Lies. The account of his eight-year imprisonment as a political dissident in a Russian gulag had just been published in the West. In retaliation, the Russian government exiled Solzhenitsyn to Zurich. The day before his expulsion from Russia, Solzhenitsyn released the text and eventually made his way to America.In his essay, Solzhenitsyn argued that the totalitarian regime which had silenced a generation of his fellow Russians existed only because lies were allowed a foothold. Out of an understandable desire to conform—“not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own, and risk suddenly having to make do without the white bread, the hot water heater, a Moscow residency permit”—individuals had allowed crushing authoritarian violence to take over little by little. Liberation was still possible, but it had to begin with the individual and a “personal non participation in lies.” In the essay, Solzhenitsyn calls on his fellow Russians to “stand straight as . . . honest m[e]n” so that the "rule [of the lies] hold not through [us].” Solzhenitsyn’s insight into psychology and human society is evergreen—and well worth revisiting today. Join us for a Fireside Chat to discuss Solzhenitsyn’s famous essay and more. Featuring:Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ---To register, click the link above.

Is open discussion and debate essential to the function of the university?Many universities, including Georgetown, have adopted strong policies on academic freedom, affirming that deliberation or debate may not be suppressed because ideas put forth might be offensive, unwise, immoral or ill conceived.But when controversy arises on campus, concrete complaints about offensive speech can displace these abstract principles of academic freedom. What does an environment conducive to learning require? What kinds of limits should govern the ideas that students are exposed to by their teachers and classmates? Should students be exposed to ideas or opinions that are offensive? Should students have recourse to administrative action when faced with an offensive opinion? What kind of harm does offense entail? On the other hand, when administrators step in to punish offending speech, does that decision come with consequences? And who bears the resulting harm attendant on limiting who can speak or what opinions can be expressed? Who measures what kind of opinions or statements are harmful or not? Featuring:Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ---To register, click the link above.

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Criminal Justice 2021 and The Rule of Law."For many who align themselves with fundamental principles of our constitutional system, the progressive agenda seems to be driven not only by an unreasonable cry to defund police, but a broader assault on the fundamental American precept "ordered liberty" through the rule of law. Meanwhile, those who align themselves with another agenda see these principles as a shield for abuses of police authority, particularly abuses aimed at certain communities, driven by perceived lack of accountability on the part of beat cops and administrators alike. This panel will review the Constitutional underpinnings of "ordered liberty" at the state and federal level. It will discuss and consider the criminal justice system's role in both securing liberty and protecting civil rights, including as carried out by police, prosecutors, defense counsel and judges.Featuring:Mr. Lawrence S. Krasner, District Attorney, City of PhiladelphiaProf. Tracey L. Meares, Walton Hale Hamilton Professor of Law; Founding Director, The Justice Collaboratory, Yale Law School Mr. McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP; Former U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of CaliforniaMr. Richard Stanek, Sheriff, Hennepin County, RetiredModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Stephanos Bibas is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the author of two books. In this 2019 interview, he talks with Marvin about changes he’d like to see in the justice system, his faith, and what motivates him as a judge.

Stephanos Bibas is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the author of two books. In this 2019 interview, he talks with Marvin about changes he’d like to see in the justice system, his faith, and what motivates him as a judge.

Bobby Maddex interviews Donna Haddad and Monica Youssef about the upcoming Orthodox Christian Attorney Network Conference on Saturday, October 17th. Donna and Monica share how past years' conferences have benefited them both personally and professionally. This year the free virtual conference features Archbishop Michael Dahulich, Hon. Stephanos Bibas, and Steven Christoforou. Find out more and register for this amazing conference here!

Bobby Maddex interviews Donna Haddad and Monica Youssef about the upcoming Orthodox Christian Attorney Network Conference on Saturday, October 17th. Donna and Monica share how past years' conferences have benefited them both personally and professionally. This year the free virtual conference features Archbishop Michael Dahulich, Hon. Stephanos Bibas, and Steven Christoforou. Find out more and register for this amazing conference here!

On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "The Wisdom and Legality of Sanctuary Cities".The issue of sanctuary cities has increasingly been in the news in recent years. The Trump administration has threatened to cut off funds to sanctuary jurisdictions and to transport aliens who enter our borders to those jurisdictions, and also claims that these jurisdictions are endangering their citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions have challenged (so far successfully) the administration’s ability to cut off funds, and has cited the 10th Amendment, among other arguments, to support their actions. They also argue that being a sanctuary jurisdiction actually helps their law enforcement efforts by encouraging illegal immigrants (who are often victims or witnesses of criminal conduct) to “come out of the shadows” and cooperate with law enforcement officials. A Massachusetts judge and her bailiff were recently indicted for helping assisting an illegal alien escape the clutches of an ICE agent who was waiting to arrest him, and federal authorities are still contemplating charges against Oakland’s mayor for warning illegal aliens that immigration authorities were about to conduct raids looking for them. We could debate the legal and moral questions surrounding sanctuary cities.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMr. Mark Fleming, Associate Director of Litigation, National Immigrant Justice CenterMr. Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions III, Former United States Attorney GeneralProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Kurt D. Engelhardt, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitIntroduction: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "The Wisdom and Legality of Sanctuary Cities".The issue of sanctuary cities has increasingly been in the news in recent years. The Trump administration has threatened to cut off funds to sanctuary jurisdictions and to transport aliens who enter our borders to those jurisdictions, and also claims that these jurisdictions are endangering their citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions have challenged (so far successfully) the administration’s ability to cut off funds, and has cited the 10th Amendment, among other arguments, to support their actions. They also argue that being a sanctuary jurisdiction actually helps their law enforcement efforts by encouraging illegal immigrants (who are often victims or witnesses of criminal conduct) to “come out of the shadows” and cooperate with law enforcement officials. A Massachusetts judge and her bailiff were recently indicted for helping assisting an illegal alien escape the clutches of an ICE agent who was waiting to arrest him, and federal authorities are still contemplating charges against Oakland’s mayor for warning illegal aliens that immigration authorities were about to conduct raids looking for them. We could debate the legal and moral questions surrounding sanctuary cities.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMr. Mark Fleming, Associate Director of Litigation, National Immigrant Justice CenterMr. Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions III, Former United States Attorney GeneralProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Kurt D. Engelhardt, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitIntroduction: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel discussed and debated the proper government response to Big Tech.In recent years, a small number of big tech companies have amassed enormous power and influence in our society. Growing concerns regarding the roles these companies play have led to numerous government investigations and bipartisan calls to crack down on or even break up Big Tech. This panel will discuss these developments and debate the proper government response to Big Tech.Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets InstituteTaylor Owings, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of JusticeProf. Joshua Wright, Professor of Law and Director, Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, and former Commissioner, Federal Trade CommissionModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third CircuitIntroduction: Ryan Costa, The Federalist Society Delaware Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel discussed and debated the proper government response to Big Tech.In recent years, a small number of big tech companies have amassed enormous power and influence in our society. Growing concerns regarding the roles these companies play have led to numerous government investigations and bipartisan calls to crack down on or even break up Big Tech. This panel will discuss these developments and debate the proper government response to Big Tech.Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets InstituteTaylor Owings, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of JusticeProf. Joshua Wright, Professor of Law and Director, Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, and former Commissioner, Federal Trade CommissionModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third CircuitIntroduction: Ryan Costa, The Federalist Society Delaware Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The Black’s Law Dictionary defines Plea Bargaining as: “[t]he process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.” Plea Bargaining as a concept dates farther back than the American justice system itself. However, over the past few decades it has occurred with more and more frequency to reach its’ current unprecedented level in our criminal justice system. Today, over 95 percent of criminal convictions are a result of Plea Bargaining, which has contributed to an evolving and controversial national debate over whether Plea Bargaining has gone too far. The positives of Plea Bargaining are apparent. It is a much more efficient process than juries, and a much more inexpensive process than trials. However, some opponents of plea bargaining point to the dangerous potential for coercion, insisting that the imbalance of power between prosecutor and defendant can often lead to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, some criticize Plea Bargaining because it infringes upon the right of the American citizen to participate in the jury process. The debates over the correct response to the frequency of Plea Bargaining will continue to grow as the effects are felt by the entirety of the American Criminal Justice System.Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMr. Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, ShreckProf. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The Black’s Law Dictionary defines Plea Bargaining as: “[t]he process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.” Plea Bargaining as a concept dates farther back than the American justice system itself. However, over the past few decades it has occurred with more and more frequency to reach its’ current unprecedented level in our criminal justice system. Today, over 95 percent of criminal convictions are a result of Plea Bargaining, which has contributed to an evolving and controversial national debate over whether Plea Bargaining has gone too far. The positives of Plea Bargaining are apparent. It is a much more efficient process than juries, and a much more inexpensive process than trials. However, some opponents of plea bargaining point to the dangerous potential for coercion, insisting that the imbalance of power between prosecutor and defendant can often lead to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, some criticize Plea Bargaining because it infringes upon the right of the American citizen to participate in the jury process. The debates over the correct response to the frequency of Plea Bargaining will continue to grow as the effects are felt by the entirety of the American Criminal Justice System.Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMr. Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, ShreckProf. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

On this week’s Versus Trump holiday spectacular, it's all judges, all the time. Charlie, Jason, and Easha take a closer look at a number of the President's judicial nominees—confirmed, pending, and withdrawn—to examine what might happen to Versus Trump cases in years to come.Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin the discussion with a quick overview of the structure of the federal court system and talk about the importance of Trump's nominations to the Court of Appeals and District Court. Charlie then starts off the discussion of individual judges by talking about confirmed appellate judges Joan Larsen and Stephanos Bibas, whom Charlie believes are fairly mainstream conservatives. Jason then brings up Matthew Peterson, a district court nominee who withdrew after being unable to answer basic questions about trial court procedure. Next, Easha offers up commentary on the confirmation process of former Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett, before the group turns to the other two withdrawn nominees, Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley, and compares them to several other judges whose confirmations appear to be going smoothly. They end the episode with their big takeaways from the first year of nominations.There's also a surprise holiday offer to our listeners at the end of the episode. You can direct message us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com if you'd like to respond. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this Case in Point podcast episode, Penn Law's Stephanos Bibas and Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson discuss President's Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court.

In this Case in Point podcast,Penn Law’s Stephanos Bibas and Bloomberg Law’s Kimberly Robinson discuss President’s Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court and the future of the institution. For more information and for additional viewing/listening options, go to www.caseinpoint.org.   Guests Stephanos Bibas Professor of Law and Criminology; Director, Supreme Court Clinic Penn Law Kimberly Robinson U.S. Supreme Court Reporter Bloomberg Law Host Felicia Lin

In this Case in Point podcast,Penn Law’s Stephanos Bibas and Bloomberg Law’s Kimberly Robinson discuss President’s Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court and the future of the institution. For more information and for additional viewing/listening options, go to www.caseinpoint.org.   Guests Stephanos Bibas Professor of Law and Criminology; Director, Supreme Court Clinic Penn Law Kimberly Robinson U.S. Supreme Court Reporter Bloomberg Law Host Felicia Lin

Justice Scalia's originalism had an important impact on our nation's criminal law. While sometimes overlooked, his commitment to the rights of criminal defendants, as rooted in the Constitution, is indisputable. He forthrightly addressed new Fourth Amendment issues including technological advances in surveillance, revived the Sixth Amendment's jury and confrontation clauses, remained mindful of both common law and substantive criminal law concerns, and in many instances swayed his fellow justices. This panel will delve into these areas and discuss if and how Justice Scalia's work will continue to affect future Court decisions. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Rachel E. Barkow, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy and Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology and Director, Supreme Court Clinic, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Prof. Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School; Mr. Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation; and Hon. Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Supreme Court. Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Designing Plea Bargaining from the Ground Up. Stephanos Bibas from the University of Pennsylvania considers whether the evidentiary protections of our criminal justice system are suitable when plea bargaining dominates.

The post Fighting Injustice & Igniting Prosperity with Stephanos Bibas & Donald Boudreaux appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

The Machinery of Criminal Justice discusses the shift in American criminal law from being a system run primarily by laymen to a system in which lawyers are the primary actors. Author Stephanos Bibas argues that this shift has increased the speed and efficiency of our criminal justice system, but that softer values, such as reforming defendants and healing relationships, have been lost with the prioritization of efficiency. Bibas proposes a variety of ways to involve victims, defendants, and the public in the criminal justice process again, including requiring convicts to work or serve in the military and giving more power to sentencing juries over prosecutors. His remarks suggest that, although these mechanisms may be more expensive, they may better serve the interests of criminal procedure by facilitating the denouncement of crime, the vindication of victims, and the reformation of criminals. -- Stephanos Bibas, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, is joined by critical commenter Andrew Taslitz, a professor at Howard University School of Law, to discuss the book.