Podcast appearances and mentions of stephen sachs

Featuring:Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterDean Rachel Rebouché, Kean Family Dean and Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University School of LawProf. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis Law SchoolModerator: Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

Jonathan Gienapp of Stanford University and Stephen Sachs of Harvard Law School join Chief Scholar Thomas Donnelly to discuss Gienapp's new book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique. They review the history of originalism and debate the role of originalism in constitutional interpretation today. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall program series on October 8, 2024.  Resources:  Jonathan Gienapp, “Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique” (2024)  Stephen Sachs and Will Baude, “Originalism and the Law of the Past” (Law and History Review, 2019)  Michael Stokes Paulsen and Vasen Kesavan, “Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?” (90 Cal L. Rev. 291, 2002)  William Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs, “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” (76 Stanford L. Rev 1185, 2024)  Jud Campbell, “Four Views of the Nature of the Union” (47 Harvard J. Law & Public Policy 2, 2024)  Fletcher v. Peck (1810)  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)  United States v. Rahimi (2024)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

The 2024 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 14-16, 2024 at the Washington Hilton in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "Group Identity and the Law." The conference will conclude with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Prof. Stephen Sachs.Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

[REBROADCAST FROM Oct. 15, 2024] 18-year-old Jackson Reffitt made national news for his decision to turn his father in to the FBI for his role in the Jan. 6th attack on the Capitol. A new play dramatizes the investigation and resulting trial, using the words from statements, evidence, and court transcripts. Reffitt joins us to discuss, alongside the play's creator and director Stephen Sachs, and Patrick Keleher, who plays Reffitt in the play. "Fatherland" is running at New York City Center through November 10.

18-year-old Jackson Reffitt made national news for his decision to turn his father in to the FBI for his role in the Jan. 6th attack on the Capitol. A new play dramatizes the investigation and resulting trial, using the words from statements, evidence, and court transcripts. Reffitt joins us to discuss, alongside the play's creator and director Stephen Sachs, and Patrick Keleher, who plays Reffitt in the play. 'Fatherland'  is running at New York City Center through November 23rd.

Stanford University professor Jonathan Gienapp, author of the new book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique, is joined by Stephen Sachs of Harvard Law School to discuss Gienapp's challenge to originalists' unspoken assumptions about the Constitution, the history of originalism as a constitutional methodology, and its role in constitutional interpretation today. Thomas Donnelly, chief content officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Jonathan Gienapp, “Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique” (2024) Stephen Sachs and Will Baude, “Originalism and the Law of the Past” (Law and History Review, 2019) Michael Stokes Paulsen and Vasen Kesavan, “Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?” (90 Cal L. Rev. 291, 2002) William Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs, “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” (76 Stanford L. Rev 1185, 2024) Jud Campbell, “Four Views of the Nature of the Union” (47 Harvard J. Law & Public Policy 2, 2024) Fletcher v. Peck (1810) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) United States v. Rahimi (2024) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at programs@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Stephen Sachs, professor of law at Harvard University, joins the Business Scholarship Podcast to discuss his article Dormant Commerce and Corporate Jurisdiction. This episode is hosted by Andrew Jennings, associate professor of law at Emory University, and was edited by Brynn Radak, a law student at Emory University.

The Artistic Director of the Fountain Theatre, Stephen Sachs, is modest about his 33 years at the helm of its creative and award-winning accomplishments.   As an example, the City Council of Los Angeles, California, recognized Stephen for his contributions to the cultural life of Los Angeles.   Being an actor, director and playwright, he took the helm of a theatre organization with a vision that the theatrical experience can be a sacred space.   A place where community problems can be presented and the audience can learn new ideas and understandings about the  world around them.                               In this episode, listeners will hear about his courageous choices as an artistic leader in the Los Angeles community believing that audiences will come to enjoy the adventure of the unorthodox and innovative.   Early on for both institutions, Def West Theatre had a home at the Fountain when the idea of deaf theatre was hardly considered possible.  The rest is history, as Def West went to Broadway and great successes.  Deaf Theatre is an important centerpiece of the Fountain's history and culture.   The Fountain Theatre has produced new plays, classic American plays, plays from around the world and was honored by becoming the home of South African Playwright Athol Fugard's many world premiers.   As we slide forward into 2023, Stephen Sachs reminds us that all of us are changed by the pandemic and that we are reassessing.  This is true for theatre stages, and important institutions like the Fountain Theatre, that will be finding through their artistry ways to help all of us move forward.   To Contact and for program information, Email:  Info@fountaintheatre.org

On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and dismissed the federal government's suit against Texas in United States v. Texas. The Court held 8-1 in Jackson that plaintiff abortion providers can pursue claims against licensing officials.A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and dismissed the federal government's suit against Texas in United States v. Texas. The Court held 8-1 in Jackson that plaintiff abortion providers can pursue claims against licensing officials.Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined in full by Justices Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, with Justice Thomas joining as to all but one part. Justices Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined, while Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined.A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join us to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:-- Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School-- Prof. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced. A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced. A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two challenges to S.B. 8. S.B. 8 bans almost all abortions in the state of Texas by allowing anyone, including people who do not live in the state, to bring a lawsuit in state court against anyone who performs an abortion after six weeks, or helps to make one possible. Leaving enforcement to the populace raised a unique procedural question in this case: who should be sued over the Texas law? In this episode, we unpack that question and the complex issues in these cases, and recap the argument including the questions asked by the Supreme Court justices. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Miriam Becker-Cohen, Appellate Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center who co-authored briefs in support of the abortion provider Whole Women's Health and the Biden administration, and Stephen Sachs, the Antonin Scalia Professor of Law at Harvard Law School who has covered these cases for the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two challenges to S.B. 8. S.B. 8 bans almost all abortions in the state of Texas by allowing anyone, including people who do not live in the state, to bring a lawsuit in state court against anyone who performs an abortion after six weeks, or helps to make one possible. Leaving enforcement to the populace raised a unique procedural question in this case: who should be sued over the Texas law? In this episode, we unpack that question and the complex issues in these cases, and recap the argument including the questions asked by the Supreme Court justices. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Miriam Becker-Cohen, Appellate Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center who co-authored briefs in support of the abortion provider Whole Women's Health and the Biden administration, and Stephen Sachs, the Antonin Scalia Professor of Law at Harvard Law School who has covered these cases for the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On September 17, 2021, the Gray Center hosted an event in memory of Judge Stephen F. Williams: a conference for new papers written for a symposium on his enormous legacy in law and liberty. We are grateful to our authors, who discussed their newly completed papers at this event, hosted at the Decatur House in Washington, D.C., and followed by a reception where we were all able to continue the conversation. The second panel looked at Judge Williams's contributions in areas related to the American Constitution and liberal democracy. It featured a panel discussion of new research papers by Antonin Scalia Law School's Michael Greve, Harvard Law School's Stephen Sachs, and Nathaniel Zelinsky of Hogan Lovells LLP, and was moderated by Gray Center Co-Executive Director Adam White. Michael Greve's paper is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Greve-So-Close-And-Yet-So-Far-Away.pdf Stephen Sachs's paper is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Sachs-Law-Within-Limits.pdf Nathaniel Zelinsky's paper is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Zelinsky-Stephen-F-Williams-on-Liberalism.pdf This episode features Michael Greve, Stephen Sachs, Adam White, and Nathaniel Zelinsky.

Will is joined by Duke law professor Stephen Sachs to discuss what is wrong with Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, how judicial decisions are like poker games and the fashion industry, and whether it is naïve to think that judges don't make law.Justice Scalia audio is from CSPAN "The Role of the Judiciary" Nov. 22, 2008Case audio is from Oyez.org

Stephen Sachs and Ernest Young, professors of law at Duke University, join us for a debate on the Erie doctrine. We pit these two scholars against one another to find out whether Erie was wrongly decided. Should state courts have the “last word” on interpretations of state law? Should we limit the role of general law? Does any of this matter? Additional readings, including any referenced during the episode, are available on our website: DiggingAHolePodcast.com.

Under colonization, traditional forms of inclusive, consensus-based Native American governance were systematically replaced with Western forms of centralized, top-down leadership. Women, who once held an integral role in the political processes of many tribal nations, were pushed out or marginalized. Then, LaDonna Harris came along. Working with Indian societies to restore self-determination, and working with the federal government to improve the efficacy of tribal sovereignty, Harris has done much to revitalize traditional modes of tribal leadership, including for women. Harris would be the first to deflect credit away from herself, because all her work has been rooted in collaboration and any success she has achieved is because of the kinds of people she has brought together. Her work has been a model for inclusive, participatory leadership. And that model of leadership is what we will be talking about on this podcast edition of Circle for Original Thinking. In working within and between tribes, and between tribes and the federal government, Harris has effectively collaborated with non-Natives, gaining support for important causes, beginning with her husband, Fred R. Harris, a powerful senator from Oklahoma in the 1960s and 1970s, who was chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the late 60s and a candidate for the presidency in the 1970s. LaDonna Harris went on to recruit many non-Native allies and to mentor them in Indian ways of leadership that are not only effective for Indian causes, but could be effectively utilized in mainstream politics. Harris first met political scientist and author Stephen Sachs in 1990. Sachs was invited to her home after a political gathering and found her warmth and hospitality so intoxicating that he found it nearly impossible to leave. Reminiscent of Humphrey Bogart and Claude Rains from Casablanca, that was the beginning of a beautiful friendship—and also the beginning of a beautiful collaboration on a wide range of issues pertaining to traditional Native American ways of building respectful relationships and its potential application to contemporary political and social issues. Join us as we explore Native American leadership and the art of collaboration with LaDonna Harris and Stephen Sachs. “The dictionary definition of leadership is ‘a person who has control over others.' That's not right…Leadership is about bringing people together so they can solve problems … then reinforcing their identity so they feel strong enough about themselves so they (the group) can make their own decisions in a collective manner”  ~ LaDonna Harris    _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Glenn Aparicio Parry, PhD, of Basque, Aragon Spanish, and Jewish descent, is the author of Original Politics: Making America Sacred Again (SelectBooks, 2020) and the Nautilus award-winning Original Thinking: A Radical Revisioning of Time, Humanity, and Nature (North Atlantic Books, 2015). Parry is an educator, ecopsychologist, and political philosopher whose passion is to reform thinking and society into a coherent, cohesive, whole. The founder and past president of the SEED Institute, Parry is currently the director of a grass-roots think tank, the Circle for Original Thinking and is debuting this podcast series of the same name in conjunction with Ecology Prime. He has lived in northern New Mexico since 1994. www.originalpolitics.us Stephen Sachs is an applied philosopher and Professor Emeritus of Political Science, (Indiana University-Perdue University-Indianapolis) who has worked on American Indian and International Indigenous Issues since 1984 as well as other issues of participatory democracy. In 1990 he connected with LaDonna Harris, who became his friend, mentor, thinking partner and collaborator on many of the issues he was working upon, as well as his writing about them. With guidance from Harris as elder and editor/mentor, Sachs was the lead writer and coordinating editor for the book Recreating the Circle: The Renewal of American Indian Self-Determination (University of New Mexico Press, 2011, reprinted in 2020). This work was a holistic consideration of returning Indian Nations to effective sovereignty, self-sufficiency and harmony, which was the forerunner of the new book Honoring the Circle: Ongoing Learning from American Indians on Politics and Society, a collaboration with 12 different writers including Donald Grinde, Bruce Johansen, Sally Roesch Wagner, Betty Booth Donohoe, et al) soon to be released by Waterside Publications. Sachs has also been the first Coordinating Editor and now Senior Editor of the journal Indigenous Policy for 20 years, and has been the Coordinating Editor of the Nonviolent Change journal for 39 years, and he was the Coordinating Editor and Senior Editor of Workplace Democracy for about 20 years.  Sachs received his MA and PhD in Political Science at the University of Chicago. In the 1980s, he began to be pulled into certain American Indian spiritual ways and ceremonies. This and other cross-cultural interests led to his meeting with Harris and their continuing collaboration. LaDonna Harris has been a catalyst in the development of Indian affairs for the past five decades. Her career began in her native state of Oklahoma, where in 1965, she brought together over 500 Native Americans from across the state to address the salient issues in their communities. Out of that seminal meeting, Oklahomans for Indian Opportunity (OIO) was formed and Harris was elected president along with 41 directors that read like a roll call of Oklahoma tribes.  In the Johnson administration of the 1960s, Harris, working sometimes with her husband Senator Fred Harris, and also with a group of American Indian leaders, many of them women, became a prominent presence on the national political scene. In 1968, she got President Johnson to agree to establish the National Council on Indian Opportunity, of which the main purpose was to shift American Indian politics toward representative input from Indian Nations. After Johnson decided not to run for reelection, Harris continued to work successfully with the incoming Nixon administration, partnering with Native leaders such as Ada Deer (Menominee), Pat Locke (Yankton Sioux), and Alma Patterson (Tuscarora), among many others. She and her partners succeeded in keeping Indian issues on the national political agenda from the 1960s to the 1990s. Among a long list of accomplishments, they succeeded in returning Blue Lake to the Taos Pueblo people, formed the Council of Energy Resources Tribes (CERT) to empower tribal nations to take control of their energy resources, and worked with the EPA to give input to Native nations in helping establish their own environmental policies. The key factor in Harris' success has always been her ability to bring together the right people and representatives from virtually all positions to talk through any given issue, help the parties understand each other's concerns, and reach consensus on a policy proposal. Her most overarching accomplishment may have been her concerted effort to develop true government to government relations between the tribes and federal, state, and local governments and agencies. Although much work remains to be done, Harris efforts have had an undeniably lasting impact. Nearly every initiative that has improved relations between Indian nations and the federal government since 1968 was previously advocated by Harris. In 1979, Ladies Home Journal named Harris as both Woman of the Year and Woman of the Decade, heralding her leadership and activism for overcoming inequalities imposed upon Native peoples. Since leaving Washington in the 1990s and moving to New Mexico, Harris main work has been with Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO), an organization she founded in the 1970s. While she remains president of AIO, her daughter Laura Harris took over the position of Executive Director nearly twenty years ago, carrying on their mission to advance the cultural, political, and economic rights of Indigenous peoples in the United States and around the world. _______________________________________________________________ Traditional native flute music by Orlando Secatero from Pathways CD.Liberty song by Ron Crowder, Jim Casey and Danny Casey _______________________________________________________________ Feature image photo credit: Jackson David via Pixabay The post Native American Leadership and the Art of Collaboration appeared first on WebTalkRadio.net.

Simone Missick made history for her powerful and extraordinary portrayal in Marvel's Luke Cage as TV's first black female superhero, Misty Knight, and has captivated audiences ever since. Touted as the show's "breakout star," Missick was featured as one of People magazine's "Ones to Watch" prior to the first season premiere. She continued to portray this impactful character in other shows, such as The Defenders and Iron Fist. Simone's other television appearances include CBS All Access' Tell Me a Story, the political thriller Scandal, Wayward Pines, and Showtime's crime drama Ray Donovan. Also, she starred in the comedy short Voicemail, for which she was nominated for the Best Actor Award at the NBC Universal Shorts Festival. Later this year, Simone will star in the second season of the series Altered Carbon, opposite Anthony Mackie. Previously, Simone filmed the lead in the independent film Jinn, directed by Nijla Mumin, which premiered at SXSW Festival in 2018. The film tells the deeply intimate and timely story of a woman who converts to Islam and how this affects her family dynamic. Outside of film and television, Simone's impressive theater work includes the Signature's Paradise Blue, written by Dominique Morisseau and directed by Ruben Santiago-Hudson and Center Theatre Group's Citizen: An American Lyric. Based on a book of poetry by Claudia Rankine, adapted for the stage by Fountain Theatre co-artistic director Stephen Sachs, and directed by Shirley Jo Finney, "Citizen" fuses poetry, prose, movement, music and the video image in a provocative stage adaptation. Also, Missick starred as Sweet Tea in The Road Weeps, the Well Runs Dry at the L.A. Theatre Center, which earned her an NAACP Theater Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress in 2014. Simone lives in Los Angeles with her husband, Dorian Missick, and pup Charlie. Her birthday is Jan. 19. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram @SimoneMissick. Welcome to the HU Movemakers Podcast (www.humovemakers.com), where we highlight folks in Howard University Culture that are blazing the trail and making moves! If you would like to apply or nominate someone to be on the podcast, please email bio/headshot to humovemakers@gmail.com. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/humovemakers/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/humovemakers/support

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, a case considering whether states maintain sovereign immunity from private suits in the courts of other states. In the 1990s, Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada. Following an investigation and audit, however, the Franchise Tax Board of California (FTB) claimed that he had misstated the date of his move and therefore owed California millions in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest. Hyatt then brought a tort suit against FTB, which is a California state agency, in Nevada state court--and won a jury verdict of nearly $500 million. Although the Nevada Supreme Court set aside much of the award on appeal, it nevertheless affirmed an award of $1 million for fraud--even though a Nevada statute would have capped such damages in a similar suit against Nevada officials at $50,000. Nevada’s interest in providing adequate redress to its own citizens, the court concluded, superseded the application of any statutory cap for California’s benefit.In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that judgment, concluding that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause required Nevada courts to grant the FTB the same level of immunity that Nevada agencies enjoy. The Court divided equally, however, on whether to overrule its 1979 precedent Nevada v. Hall, which holds that the Constitution does not bar private suits against a State in the courts of another State. By statute, the Court was therefore required to affirm the jurisdiction of the Nevada Supreme Court. On remand, that court instructed the trial court to enter damages against FTB in accord with the statutory cap for Nevada agencies. Thereafter the U.S. Supreme Court again granted certiorari to reconsider Nevada v. Hall. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court overruled Nevada v. Hall, holding that states retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in courts of other states. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. To discuss the case, we have Stephen Sachs, Professor of Law at Duke University.

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, a case considering whether states maintain sovereign immunity from private suits in the courts of other states. In the 1990s, Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada. Following an investigation and audit, however, the Franchise Tax Board of California (FTB) claimed that he had misstated the date of his move and therefore owed California millions in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest. Hyatt then brought a tort suit against FTB, which is a California state agency, in Nevada state court--and won a jury verdict of nearly $500 million. Although the Nevada Supreme Court set aside much of the award on appeal, it nevertheless affirmed an award of $1 million for fraud--even though a Nevada statute would have capped such damages in a similar suit against Nevada officials at $50,000. Nevada’s interest in providing adequate redress to its own citizens, the court concluded, superseded the application of any statutory cap for California’s benefit.In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that judgment, concluding that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause required Nevada courts to grant the FTB the same level of immunity that Nevada agencies enjoy. The Court divided equally, however, on whether to overrule its 1979 precedent Nevada v. Hall, which holds that the Constitution does not bar private suits against a State in the courts of another State. By statute, the Court was therefore required to affirm the jurisdiction of the Nevada Supreme Court. On remand, that court instructed the trial court to enter damages against FTB in accord with the statutory cap for Nevada agencies. Thereafter the U.S. Supreme Court again granted certiorari to reconsider Nevada v. Hall. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court overruled Nevada v. Hall, holding that states retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in courts of other states. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. To discuss the case, we have Stephen Sachs, Professor of Law at Duke University.

In this episode, Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law, discusses his article "Finding Law," which was just published in the California Law Review. Sachs begins by explaining the conceptual difference between "making" and "finding" law, and why his argument that it is possible for judges to find law is controversial. He describes the legal realist argument that judges only make law, and how it found early expression in the Erie v. Tompkins case. He observes that we "find" norms all of the time, and argues that judges can and do "find" law in just the same way. And he explains how iconic examples to the contrary, including Erie, actually require law-finding as well. Sachs is on Twitter at @StephenESachs.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On January 9, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, a case considering whether one state may, without its consent, be sued by a private citizen in another state’s courts.In the 1990s, Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada. Following an investigation and audit, however, the Franchise Tax Board of California (FTB) claimed that he had misstated the date of his move and therefore owed California millions in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest. Hyatt then brought a tort suit against FTB, which is a California state agency, in Nevada state court--and won a jury verdict of nearly $500 million. Although the Nevada Supreme Court set aside much of the award on appeal, it nevertheless affirmed an award of $1 million for fraud--even though a Nevada statute would have capped such damages in a similar suit against Nevada officials at $50,000. Nevada’s interest in providing adequate redress to its own citizens, the court concluded, superseded the application of any statutory cap for California’s benefit.California sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to overrule the 1979 decision Nevada v. Hall, which held that one state’s courts could adjudicate a private citizen’s lawsuit against another state without the second state’s consent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari but split 4-4 on the issue, which resulted in a technical affirmance of the Nevada Supreme Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Reaching the merits, the Court held by a vote of 6-2 that the U.S. Constitution did not permit Nevada to apply a rule of Nevada law that awarded damages against California greater than it could award against Nevada in similar circumstances.On remand, the Nevada Supreme Court reissued its vacated opinion except as to the damages portion and applied the statutory damages caps for FTB’s benefit. FTB again petitioned for certiorari, however, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to revisit the issue on which it had previously split 4-4: whether Nevada v. Hall, which permits a sovereign state to be haled into another state’s courts without its consent, should be overruled.To discuss the case, we have Stephen Sachs, Professor of Law at Duke University.

On January 9, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, a case considering whether one state may, without its consent, be sued by a private citizen in another state’s courts.In the 1990s, Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada. Following an investigation and audit, however, the Franchise Tax Board of California (FTB) claimed that he had misstated the date of his move and therefore owed California millions in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest. Hyatt then brought a tort suit against FTB, which is a California state agency, in Nevada state court--and won a jury verdict of nearly $500 million. Although the Nevada Supreme Court set aside much of the award on appeal, it nevertheless affirmed an award of $1 million for fraud--even though a Nevada statute would have capped such damages in a similar suit against Nevada officials at $50,000. Nevada’s interest in providing adequate redress to its own citizens, the court concluded, superseded the application of any statutory cap for California’s benefit.California sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to overrule the 1979 decision Nevada v. Hall, which held that one state’s courts could adjudicate a private citizen’s lawsuit against another state without the second state’s consent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari but split 4-4 on the issue, which resulted in a technical affirmance of the Nevada Supreme Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Reaching the merits, the Court held by a vote of 6-2 that the U.S. Constitution did not permit Nevada to apply a rule of Nevada law that awarded damages against California greater than it could award against Nevada in similar circumstances.On remand, the Nevada Supreme Court reissued its vacated opinion except as to the damages portion and applied the statutory damages caps for FTB’s benefit. FTB again petitioned for certiorari, however, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to revisit the issue on which it had previously split 4-4: whether Nevada v. Hall, which permits a sovereign state to be haled into another state’s courts without its consent, should be overruled.To discuss the case, we have Stephen Sachs, Professor of Law at Duke University.

Do judges make law or find and apply it? Or both? Long ago, the realists seemingly won the argument that judging inevitably involves making law, not just identifying it. We talk with Stephen Sachs, who argues for the rehabilitation of the possibility that judges acting in good faith can indeed find the law. Will Stephen and Joe clash over what this means for Erie? You'll just have to listen to find out. This show’s links: Stephen Sachs' faculty profile (https://law.duke.edu/fac/sachs/) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=532296) Stephen Sachs, Finding Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3064443) Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4671607337309792720) Yes, I said "statistics," but I know it's Herbert Spencer, Social Statics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Statics) Felix Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1116300?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) Oral Argument 28: A Wonderfule Catastrophe (http://oralargument.org/28) (the one on Erie) Special Guest: Stephen Sachs.

In 1992, a retired truck driver named Teri Horton paid five dollars for a painting from a southern California thrift store to give as a gag gift to a friend. An incomprehensible series of dots, blotches and streaks, her friend refused her gift and Horton ending up trying to unload the gangly canvas at a yard sale. It caught the eye of a local high school art teacher who let her know she just might be in possession of a genuine Jackson Pollock painting worth millions. Horton’s response is unprintable, but it was the beginning of a decades-long quest to determine the authenticity of the painting and its true value. That’s the backstory to Bakersfield Mist, playwright Stephen Sachs’s fictionalized take on Horton’s quest running now at Santa Rosa’s Left Edge Theatre. Set in a Bakersfield trailer park, it’s a two-character comedy of desperation that imagines the meeting between ex-bartender Maude Gutman (played by Sandra Ish at her blowsy best) and art connoisseur Lionel Percy (a prickly Mike Pavone.) Gutman has scraped enough money together to hire Percy to render his professional opinion on the work in question. As dismissive of Gutman as he is of the painting, what follows is an 80-minute, bourbon-soaked battle of wits between the two that raises issues of class, culture, personal validation and authenticity that go beyond the determination of the status of a single work of art. Sachs packs a lot into 80 minutes and falters a bit when he veers into maudlinism. At its core, the script is a neo-Neil Simon Odd Couple with Gutman’s ‘Oscar’ clashing with Percy’s ‘Felix’, albeit with a bit more depth and a lot more adult humor and language. Ish and Pavone are equally matched talents and equally matched adversaries, each seeking their own validation. For reasons greater than simply the money at stake, Gutman needs the painting to be genuine. Percy has his own issues in needing his decision to be right. Co-directors Argo Thompson and Kimberly Kalember set Ish and Pavone loose on a nicely detailed set (also by Thompson) that perfectly captures the stock ambiance of a mobile home. From its fake wood paneling to its omnipresent collection of shot glasses to a well-worn recliner, the set almost becomes a third character in the play, and maybe even a fourth if you include the painting itself. Bakersfield Mist uses the inhabitants of an art museum and a trailer park as a clever means of examining the classic blue collar/white collar (or, if you prefer, red state/blue state) divide and, more interestingly, the current hot-button topic of authenticity. Should a leader in a field calling something ‘fake’ overrule scientific evidence to the contrary? Sound familiar? “Bakersfield Mist” plays at Santa Rosa’s Left Edge Studio Theatre in the Luther Burbank Center for the Arts through December 2nd with evening performances at 8pm with some additional weekend performances at 2 or 5pm. For specific show dates and times, go to leftedgetheatre.com

We’ve been asking for a true originalist to take us to the woodshed for all our prior doubts and dismissiveness of originalism as a method of interpretation. Enter Will Baude. This show’s links: William Baude’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/baude) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=398074) About Ben Linus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Linus) First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Legal Theory 101 (http://www.hydratext.com/legal-theory-101/) (and corresponding blog post (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2016/11/2/legal-theory-101)) William Baude and Stephen Sachs, Originalism’s Bite (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2851986) William Baude and Stephen Sachs, The Law of Interpretation (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2783398) William Baude, Is Originalism Our Law? (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2672631) Oral Argument 113: The Entrails of Fowl (http://oralargument.org/113) (guest Charles Barzun) Lawrence Solum, Semantic Originalism (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120244) Stephen Sachs, Originalism as a Theory of Legal Change (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6059&context=faculty_scholarship) Richard Re, Promising the Constitution (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=nulr) Two debates about interpretation between Justices Breyer and Scalia: Annenberg Classroom (http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-judicial-interpretation) and a joint Federalist Society and ACS event (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4n8gOUzZ8I) Richard Posner, Supreme Court Breakfast Table Entry 27: Broad Interpretations (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/richard_posner_clarifies_his_views_on_the_constitution.html) Radiolab Presents: More Perfect, The Political Thicket (http://www.wnyc.org/story/the-political-thicket) Mary Sarah Bilder, Madison’s Hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention (https://www.amazon.com/Madisons-Hand-Revising-Constitutional-Convention/dp/0674055276); see also a conversation with Bilder at the National Constitution Center (https://www.c-span.org/video/?401572-3/madisons-hand) Special Guest: William Baude.

Is originalism required by our law? We chat with Charles Barzun about his critique of the inclusive originalists, the new movement to claim that an originalist interpretive method is not only a good choice among possible methods but is the method which is mandated by a positivist approach to our law. This show’s links: Charles Barzun’s faculty profile and writing Charles Barzun, The Positive U-Turn William Baude and Stephen Sachs, The Law of Interpretation William Baude, Is Originalism Our Law? Oral Argument 98: T3 Jedi (guests Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen) Scott Shapiro, Legality (Amazon and Google Books) Brown v. Board of Education; Jack Balkin and Bruce Ackerman (eds.), What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said Charles Barzun, Inside/Out: Beyond the Internal/External Distinction in Legal Scholarship Oral Argument 77: Jackasses Are People Too (guest Adam Kolber) Special Guest: Charles Barzun.

2nd Paper - Stephen Sachs - Discussion

2nd Paper - Stephen Sachs - Initial Presentation