Podcasts about tenth circuit

Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have taken on a contentious role in the new Trump administration, which has affected federal agencies and thousands of workers. But are DOGE's actions legal? Those arguing they aren't worry it is overstepping and violating the Constitution. Those supporting DOGE's actions say it is operating under strict oversight while fulfilling its mandate. Now we debate: Is Musk's DOGE Dodging the Law?    Arguing Yes: Laurence Tribe, University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School  Arguing No: Michael W. McConnell, Former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Law Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The case was decided on January 21, 2025. Brenda Andrew was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, and was sentenced to death. During her trial, the prosecution introduced extensive evidence about her sex life and personal failings, which was later conceded to be irrelevant. Andrew argued in a federal habeas petition that this evidence was so prejudicial it violated the Due Process Clause. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) upheld her conviction, finding some of the evidence about her extramarital affairs relevant but acknowledging that much of the other evidence was irrelevant. Despite this, the OCCA deemed the errors harmless. Two judges dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence undermined the fairness of the trial. In federal court, the District Court denied relief, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that Andrew failed to cite clearly established federal law. The Tenth Circuit majority acknowledged the precedent set by Payne v Tennessee but dismissed it as a pronouncement rather than a holding. Judge Bacharach dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence deprived Andrew of a fair trial. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the Tenth Circuit erred in its interpretation. The Court clarified that Payne established that the Due Process Clause can protect against the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair. The Court vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the trial court's admission of irrelevant evidence was so prejudicial as to render Andrew's trial fundamentally unfair. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Second Amendment: May the federal government prohibit “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing firearms in State's where marijuana is legal? - Argued: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 18:35:0 EDT

Civil Procedure: Can Congress legislate that certain activity constitutes consent to personal jurisdiction? - Argued: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 9:2:34 EDT

In 1906, Congress passed the Antiquities Act, which gives the President the authority to set aside federal land to protect "objects of historic or scientific interest." Presidents have since used the Act in increasingly broad ways, setting aside millions and millions of acres to protect broader arrays of "objects." Recently, President Biden set aside 3 million acres in Utah to protect a collection of such objects -- among them: landscapes, regions, ecosystems, habitats, and animals.Following these designations, both the State of Utah and a collection of individual plaintiffs sued, arguing that the President's actions violated the Antiquities Act. The Tenth Circuit recently heard arguments on the case, which concerns not only the meaning of the Antiquities Act, but also whether such presidential action is reviewable by the federal courts in the first place. This challenge ultimately tees up a question that Chief Justice Roberts asked in a separate writing a few years ago: Whether the Antiquities Act really is as broad as it has been applied, or whether it is time for the federal courts to start reimposing its limits?Featuring:Harry Graver, Associate, Jones DayProf. Sam Kalen, Associate Dean and William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of LawModerator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell--To register, click the link above.

In today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, we examine the impact, if any, of a landmark opinion rendered by Judge Daniel Domenico of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado in a case challenging recently enacted Colorado legislation on interstate loans made from outside Colorado to Colorado residents. We also address the effects this decision and the outcome of this litigation may have on interstate rate exportation by state-chartered banks across the country. We open with a brief history of the interest rate exportation authority of national and state-chartered banks, and theories developed by opponents to attack those exportation powers. Next, we turn to a discussion of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA), the federal legislation adopted to create competitive equality between state-chartered banks and national banks by giving state banks the ability to export the interest rates and late fees allowed by the laws of the state where the bank is located, notwithstanding interest rate and late fee limitations imposed by the borrower's state. We then focus on the “opt-out rights” conferred on states under Section 525 of DIDMCA, and states that have attempted to exercise (or broaden) this right, including Colorado's recent adoption of an opt-out statute. We then delve into the details of the current court challenge to the Colorado opt-out statute, including a close examination of the statute itself, the state's enforcement position, and the complaint filed by the plaintiff trade associations seeking to strike down the statute. We review the briefs filed and oral arguments made, including amicus briefs filed by the FDIC, supporting the state, and by the American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association, supporting the plaintiffs (the latter of which was submitted on behalf of these amici by Ballard Spahr, LLP). We point out that the position taken by the FDIC in its amicus brief is the exact opposite of the position taken by the FDIC in 1991 in the Greenwood Trust Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts case in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a Massachusetts opt-out statute. In that case, the FDIC agreed with Greenwood, a Delaware state-chartered bank, that the Massachusetts opt-out statute had no effect on the power of a state-chartered, FDIC-insured bank like Greenwood to charge Massachusetts credit card holders the “interest” permitted by Delaware law. The FDIC never acknowledged or explained this flip-flop in its amicus brief filed or during oral argument in the Colorado statute. We proceed with an in-depth discussion of the thorough and thoughtful opinion issued by Judge Domenico granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado from enforcing its opt-out statute against their members not located in Colorado who are making loans to Colorado residents from outside Colorado, pending the outcome of the litigation, holding that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits. This order is currently on appeal in the Tenth Circuit and is in the process of being briefed. We then conclude with thoughts about the potential effect of the Colorado litigation on Iowa's opt-out statute, in place since 1980, a survey of opt-out legislation pending in other states, and how the Colorado litigation might affect the future of opt-out laws in these and other states. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by Burt Rublin, Joseph Schuster, and Ron Vaske, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, laying the foundation for the federal judiciary as we know it today. This landmark legislation established a three-tiered court system, consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court at its pinnacle. The Act also created the position of Attorney General to represent the federal government in legal matters. One of its most critical provisions was the authorization of six justices for the Supreme Court, marking the Court's formal establishment.The Judiciary Act granted the Supreme Court the authority to hear appeals from state courts, ensuring the supremacy of federal law. Additionally, it gave lower federal courts jurisdiction over specific types of cases, including those involving the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties. Perhaps most famously, the Act's Section 25 allowed the Supreme Court to review decisions of state courts when federal issues were at stake, further centralizing federal judicial power.This Act played a pivotal role in shaping the balance of powers between the federal government and the states. It ensured that federal laws would have a uniform interpretation across the country. While it has been amended many times, the Judiciary Act of 1789 remains a cornerstone of U.S. legal history, establishing the basic framework for the judicial branch.In 2021, Eric Adams promised to reform New York City's flawed property tax system, which many blame for exacerbating housing inequality. The current system results in tax disparities, with upscale Manhattan properties often taxed at lower rates than homes in the outer boroughs. Despite Adams' campaign pledges, his administration has yet to introduce significant reforms. Instead, it has fought a 2017 lawsuit filed by Tax Equity Now New York, which argues the system unfairly burdens minority communities and renters. The lawsuit was revived in 2023, and the court ruled that the city has the authority to address these tax inequalities. Adams, however, faces a political dilemma. Any changes would likely increase taxes for many homeowners, threatening key voting blocs. Property taxes are a critical revenue source, generating $32.7 billion in the last fiscal year. City officials prefer state-led reforms, but without a strong push from Adams, the state is unlikely to act. The ongoing lawsuit may force the city to respond more directly. The next court hearing is set for October 2024, where the city will be required to submit documents explaining its tax assessments.Eric Adams Fights Legal Challenge to NYC's ‘Unfair' Property TaxAnd on the subject of NYC and the need to focus on state-based reforms, in my column this week, I discuss New York City's retreat from a proposed partnership tax, emphasizing how it reveals the limitations local governments face in tax policy. Municipalities like New York operate under state control, making meaningful tax reform at the city level nearly impossible. Even when a city attempts to innovate, its tax policies must align with state rules, or risk legal and administrative challenges. In this case, New York City's plan to depart from the state's method of taxing partnership income posed significant compliance difficulties and potential capital flight. Ultimately, the city reverted to the state's tax model, acknowledging the practical benefits of consistency. This outcome reflects broader issues cities face: compliance costs, capital mobility, and state-imposed restrictions all limit local tax initiatives. In states like Wisconsin and Colorado, further limitations on local taxation exist through caps or voter approval requirements. The core message is clear: real tax reform must happen at the state level, as municipalities lack the autonomy to make meaningful changes on their own.NYC Partnership Tax Retreat Shows Change Must Come at State LevelThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard arguments in Garfield County v. Biden, a case challenging President Joe Biden's authority to restore the boundaries of the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments. The plaintiffs, including Utah and Garfield County, argue that the monuments, covering over 3 million acres, violate the Antiquities Act by exceeding the “smallest area compatible” for preserving historical sites. The monuments, initially designated by Presidents Clinton and Obama, were reduced in size by President Trump before Biden reinstated them in 2021.The central question before the court is whether presidential actions under the Antiquities Act can be reviewed by courts. A lower court had dismissed the case, ruling that Biden's actions were not subject to judicial review. The Tenth Circuit must now decide if courts can assess the legality of these presidential designations.The case could set a precedent on whether future presidents can use the Antiquities Act to protect vast expanses of land, affecting federal land management and resource development. The lawsuit may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Roberts has previously expressed interest in revisiting the scope of the Antiquities Act.Biden's National Monuments Power Set for Tenth Circuit ScrutinyCaroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research and ex-girlfriend of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, is set to be sentenced for her role in the $8 billion fraud linked to FTX's collapse. Ellison, who has pleaded guilty to seven counts of fraud and conspiracy, cooperated with prosecutors in Bankman-Fried's trial, where he was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Ellison's sentencing is expected to be more lenient, as her cooperation was deemed "extraordinary" by prosecutors, who highlighted her remorse.Ellison's cooperation involved meeting with prosecutors around 20 times to assist in building the case against Bankman-Fried, whom she testified had directed her to misuse FTX customer funds to cover losses at Alameda Research. Her testimony revealed she felt relief after the fraud was exposed, lifting a burden of lies. While Ellison could face up to 110 years in prison, her lawyers have argued for no jail time due to her extensive assistance. Two other FTX executives, Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, are also awaiting sentencing later this year.Bankman-Fried's ex-girlfriend Ellison to be sentenced over crypto fraud | ReutersTaft Stettinius & Hollister, a U.S. law firm with 925 attorneys, announced its merger with Denver-based Sherman & Howard, which has 125 lawyers across the Mountain West region. The merger, effective January 1, 2025, is part of a broader trend of law firm consolidations in 2024. This merger will bring the combined firms' projected revenue to $810 million. Taft has been expanding over the past 16 years, targeting high-growth markets like Denver and Phoenix. Sherman & Howard, facing challenges competing with larger firms, sought the merger to gain broader expertise and ensure long-term business viability. Several other law firm mergers have been announced in September, signaling increased consolidation in the legal industry.US law firm merger streak continues with Taft tie-up | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In its latest student loan legal challenge, NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case of Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas v. Department of Education before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. NCLA is pushing for the Court to uphold and expand a preliminary injunction against the Department's "SAVE" plan, which unlawfully alters the 1993 Higher Education Act amendments to transform authorized student-loan-repayment plans into unauthorized loan-cancellation schemes—costing taxpayers $475 billion. With support from the Cato Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, NCLA argues for halting this overreach of Executive Branch power.Vec and Jenin discuss the case in this episode.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has overturned David Lesh's criminal conviction, declaring that the USFS regulation banning “work activity” on their lands was too vague. Lesh's crime? Posting photos on Instagram! In this episode, Jenin, Mark, and Vec delve into the case with NCLA's Kara Rollins, exploring the ruling's implications and debating whether the petty offense exception needs a constitutional overhaul. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NCLA is fighting back against the Department of Education's $475 billion “SAVE” plan, which illegally shifts student loan debt to taxpayers! The plan rewrites the Higher Education Act in ways Congress never approved. After a divided Tenth Circuit panel lifted a crucial injunction against this scheme, NCLA has teamed up with the Cato Institute, Mackinac Center, and Defense of Freedom Institute to challenge this unconstitutional overreach. Join Mark, Vec, and Jenin as they dive into this explosive case and the battle to stop executive overreach!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Title: "Trump's Potential Future Supreme Court Picks: A Deep Dive"In his tenure as President, Donald Trump made substantial and indelible hallmarks on the structure of American jurisprudence by selecting his Supreme Court nominees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. As revealed in a report by The New York Times, these choices were all drawn from versions of an established shortlist, raising questions about the potential future nominations, had he continued in the office.Trump's triumvirate selection on the Supreme Court bench has irrevocably impacted the direction of U.S. jurisprudence and raised an array of reactions, from vehement criticism to staunch support, depending, unsurprisingly, on the ideological leanings of the observer. His use of a predetermined shortlist in selecting these nominees represented a departure from the typical selection process in which presidential nominees for Supreme Court vacancies are usually subject to rigorous review and vetting by a team of legal and political advisors.Judge Neil Gorsuch was the first to be selected from Trump's shortlist. His conservative credentials and originalist interpretation of the constitution were made apparent during his tenure on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and further amplified in his time in the supreme court.Brett Kavanaugh, another selection from Trump's shortlist, has proven to be a controversial figure. His appointment process was marked by heated debates and allegations, sparking nationwide discussions about the conduct and integrity of prospective Supreme Court nominees.Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's final Supreme Court pick, has been praised by conservatives for her originalist take on the Constitution, much like Gorsuch. Her swift confirmation became a contentious issue in the 2020 election, with critics arguing it was rushed through without proper scrutiny.The adherence to the shortlist in making these selections sheds light on Trump's approach to the Supreme Court. It suggests a calculated approach to shaping the judicial branch in line with his political ideology. Observers and legal experts have opined that this could lead to court decisions that hark back to originalist interpretations, potentially resulting in monumental changes in American jurisprudence.As we look back on Trump's time in the office, it is clear that his influence on the Supreme Court has been unlike any other president in recent memory. His strict adherence to a predetermined shortlist has led to the appointment of judges who have left, and will likely continue to leave, a lasting imprint on the Supreme Court. Whether one views these developments as positive or negative is largely a matter of ideological perspective, which only underscores the highly partisan nature of Supreme Court nominations, and indeed the wider American political milieu.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has reversed a district court decision in Johnson v. Smith that upheld a Kansas state law authorizing intrusive warrantless searches for dog training and handling businesses. NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief explaining that the warrantless-search law infringes the Appellants' Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” While the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Appellants' claim that the state law violates their right to travel, it remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment authorizes warrantless searches of dog training and handling businesses—the issue we briefed. In this episode, Mark and John celebrate the win and discuss the caseSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This UVA Speaks podcast features Craig Konnoth, the Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law at the University of Virginia's School of Law. Konnoth explains that over the past decade, the LGBTQ movement has shifted its focus from marriage equality and employment discrimination to other critical issues. These include exemption claims like those upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 303 Creative case that allows individuals to deny services to LGBTQ individuals based on their speech or religious rights. Konnoth emphasizes the need to form alliances with other minority groups to safeguard their hard-won progress. Transcripts of the audio broadcast can be found here. Craig Konnoth is the Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Professor Konnoth writes about health, civil rights, and health data regulation. He is also active in LGBTQ rights litigation and has filed briefs on LGBTQ rights issues in the U.S. Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit. His publications have appeared or will appear in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Iowa Law Review, the online companions to the Penn Law Review, and the Washington & Lee Law Review, and as chapters in edited volumes.

Criminal Procedure: Is it structural error for the government to intrude into attorney-client confidential communications? - Argued: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:14:6 EDT

Second Amendment: May a state prohibit the sale of firearms to individuals under twenty-one? - Argued: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:16:13 EDT

Federalism: Does the Unlawful Inclosures Act require property owners to allow individuals to "corner-cross" their property when traveling between public lands? - Argued: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:20:48 EDT

Civil Rights: Can a sorority's national chapter sue to prevent a university chapter from admitting trans women as members? - Argued: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:10:32 EDT

You asked for it......this episode is alllllllllll Angela! Join us as we break down Endrew v. Douglas and what it means for FAPE. Endrew v DouglasThe USDOE considers Endrew to be such an important case they have devoted significant resources to unpacking the decision - you can find the whole discussion here:USDOE summary of the case.  If you are interested in a brief summary, here is what USDOE has to say today:"On March 22, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court (sometimes referred to as Court) issued a unanimous opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988. In that case, the Court interpreted the scope of the free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Court overturned the Tenth Circuit's decision that Endrew, a child with autism, was only entitled to an educational program that was calculated to provide “merely more than de minimis” educational benefit. In rejecting the Tenth Circuit's reasoning, the Supreme Court determined that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP [individualized education program] that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.” The Court additionally emphasized the requirement that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.”The Endrew F. decision is important because it informs our efforts to improve academic outcomes for children with disabilities. To this end, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is providing parents and other stakeholders information on the issues addressed in Endrew F. and the impact of the Court's decision on the implementation of the IDEA. Because the decision in Endrew F. clarified the scope of the IDEA's FAPE requirements, the Department's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is interested in receiving comments from families, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders to assist us in identifying implementation questions and best practices. If you are interested in commenting on this document or have additional questions, please send them to OSERS by email at EndrewF@ed.gov."Please tell us how you found us by completing this surveyEmail us at ASTALPodcast@gmail.comFollow us on Instagram @astalpodcast

In this episode, I sit down with the Honorable (and a captain in the Navy Reserve) Rich Federico whose nomination to become a judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in December 2023. One of the few officers who every assignment on active duty and then in the Reserve Component was a litigation assignment, Judge Federico left active duty in 2015 and then served as a Federal public defender in Oregon and then in Kansas before becoming a Federal judge. A truly remarkable accomplishment for a true officer and a gentleman. Judge Federico's profile can be accessed here. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tom-welsh/support

This Day in Legal History: Cuba Suspended from Organization of American States (OAS)Today, January 22nd, marks a significant date in legal history. On this day in 1962, the Organization of American States (OAS), an international organization founded for the purposes of regional solidarity and cooperation among its member states in the Americas, made a momentous decision regarding Cuba. Following the communist revolution in Cuba led by Fidel Castro, the OAS voted to suspend Cuba from its membership. This action was a reflection of the Cold War tensions that were prevalent during that era, as many member countries of the OAS were aligned with the United States, which opposed communist ideologies.The suspension of Cuba from the OAS was more than a symbolic gesture; it represented a significant diplomatic and political isolation of Cuba in the Western Hemisphere. It was a part of broader efforts by the United States and its allies to limit the spread of communism, particularly in the Americas. The OAS, established in 1948, was seen as a crucial platform for political discourse and policy-making in the region, and Cuba's exclusion meant a significant limitation in its diplomatic reach and influence.However, the political landscape began to shift over the years, and in a historic move, the OAS voted to reinstate Cuba on June 3, 2009. This decision came at a time when international attitudes towards Cuba were thawing, and there was a growing recognition of the need to engage rather than isolate. The vote to reinstate Cuba was seen as a step towards normalizing relations and acknowledged the changing dynamics in international politics.Interestingly, the Cuban government, led by Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, rejected the offer of reinstatement almost immediately. The rejection by Cuba was indicative of the deep-seated mistrust and the residual effects of years of political and ideological conflict. Cuba's response was also a reflection of its desire to maintain its sovereignty and political ideology without perceived interference from other nations, particularly those in the Americas.The events of January 22, 1962, and the subsequent developments in 2009 highlight the complexities of international relations and the ongoing impact of historical events on contemporary politics. They underscore the evolving nature of diplomatic ties and the intricate balance between national sovereignty, ideological beliefs, and international cooperation.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to make a ruling that could limit federal agencies' regulatory powers, significantly influencing a challenge to President Biden's rule on socially conscious investing for employee retirement plans. This challenge, initiated by 26 Republican-led states, focuses on a Department of Labor rule that allows retirement plans to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions. The states have requested the U.S. appeals court to delay its decision on this matter until the Supreme Court's ruling.The Supreme Court's decision revolves around the "Chevron deference," a legal precedent from 1984 that mandates judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous U.S. laws. This doctrine is currently under scrutiny in a case related to overfishing monitoring. Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, overseeing the lawsuit against the ESG investing rule, previously found the Labor Department's interpretation reasonable, allowing plans to consider ESG factors as long as traditional financial considerations remain prioritized.However, the challenging states argue that federal law explicitly requires retirement plans to focus solely on the financial benefit of participants, negating the need for Chevron deference in this case. They suggest that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals should await the Supreme Court's decision on Chevron deference before proceeding.Critics of ESG investing, primarily Republicans, argue that it promotes liberal agendas, potentially harming the financial interests of plan participants or shareholders. The Biden administration, defending the ESG rule, argues for the preservation of Chevron deference, highlighting the necessity for agencies to interpret ambiguous legislation.The ESG rule, established in November 2023, reversed former President Trump's restrictions on considering ESG factors, impacting plans that invest over $12 trillion for more than 150 million people. The Supreme Court's decision on Chevron deference could have far-reaching implications, potentially making it more challenging for federal agencies to defend their rules in court and indicating a broader conservative effort to reduce the powers of the "administrative state." During the Supreme Court's recent arguments, a clear majority opinion on overturning Chevron deference was not evident, with some conservative justices expressing skepticism while others showed reluctance to reverse it.US Supreme Court ruling on agency powers may impact Biden ESG investing rule | ReutersThe Tenth Circuit is currently considering a challenge by Utah to President Joe Biden's re-establishment of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. Central to this case is the issue of judicial review regarding presidential use of the Antiquities Act for creating large national monuments. Utah, alongside two counties, appealed after their lawsuit was dismissed by Judge David Nuffer of the US District Court for the District of Utah, who ruled that Biden's actions under the Antiquities Act aren't subject to judicial review.The state argues that the vast size of these monuments, collectively covering over 3 million acres, violates the Antiquities Act's requirement for including only the “smallest area compatible” to protect antiquities. This expansion by Biden, which reversed former President Donald Trump's reduction of the monuments in 2017, has been criticized for limiting activities like drilling, mining, and logging.The Biden administration, along with environmental groups and tribes, are advocating for the appeals court to uphold the district court's dismissal of Utah's lawsuit. The Supreme Court's attention to this issue has been hinted at in a 2021 dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted the potentially limitless power of the Antiquities Act.Environmental groups argue that the Supreme Court already settled this issue in 1920, affirming President Theodore Roosevelt's use of the Act to protect the Grand Canyon. They, along with 29 law professors, contend that the challenges to the monuments are baseless and note the historical significance of these areas, dense with cultural artifacts sacred to tribes.The law professors emphasized that the Antiquities Act, which has been used by 18 presidents to establish protected areas, doesn't allow for judicial review and is a crucial piece of public land legislation. They highlight its historical use in creating significant monuments, including Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument and others by recent presidents.The Tenth Circuit's decision on whether Antiquities Act proclamations are reviewable could lead to a remand to the district court for a deeper examination of Utah's claims against the Biden administration. The outcome of this case could impact the future scope and application of the Antiquities Act in the preservation of national monuments.Biden Monument Dispute in Utah to Center on Judicial ReviewThe Florida State Bar recently adopted ethical guidelines for attorneys using artificial intelligence (AI), marking it as one of the first governing bodies to provide such guidance. These guidelines, detailed in an 18-page opinion approved by the bar's board of governors, address various aspects of AI use in legal practice, from reviewing computer-generated work to fee structures and maintaining client confidentiality.The initiative to develop these guidelines stemmed from the bar President Scott Westheimer's focus on addressing the promise and peril of AI in law. An ethics committee identified potential pitfalls of AI to offer general guidance adaptable to the increasing number of AI tools in the legal industry. Brian David Burgoon, Chair of the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics, emphasized the significance of AI in law, noting both excitement and caution due to its potential to provide a competitive edge to practitioners who use it responsibly.Despite AI being a new technology, the ethical concerns it raises are familiar. The guidance reminds lawyers of the importance of supervising and verifying the work produced by AI, akin to the traditional oversight of law clerks and paralegals. The potential efficiency and effectiveness of AI in legal practice could lead to cost savings for clients and firms. However, the guidelines stress the need for fair pricing, drawing parallels with past rulings on other expenses and overheads.A unique challenge with AI is the risk to client confidentiality, particularly with large language models that might retain and improperly divulge client information. The guidelines advise lawyers to be vigilant and continuously analyze each AI tool's use to ensure adherence to ethical principles.The rapidly evolving nature of AI technology and its growing presence in legal practice underscore the importance of having ethical guidelines. These guidelines aim to help lawyers navigate both the advantageous tools and the potential problems AI can bring to the legal field.AI Guidance From Florida Bar Builds on Familiar Ethics RulesThe $78 billion bipartisan business break and child tax credit bill passed the House Ways and Means Committee with a 40-3 vote, signaling a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress. Despite Republican resistance to more robust child tax credit provisions and a raised state-and-local tax (SALT) deduction cap, both parties recognized the bill as a compromise. The committee's Chair, Jason Smith (R-Mo.), praised the bipartisan vote, highlighting the potential for cross-party collaboration to deliver tax relief.As the bill moves to the House floor, members from both parties expressed a desire for a swift vote, possibly as soon as January 29 when the House returns. However, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has not indicated his support for the bill nor his plans for its presentation in the House. The bill might need to pass under suspension of the rules, which limits amendments and requires a two-thirds supermajority, but regular order could allow for further amendments from both parties.In the Senate, the situation is more complex. While Senate Democrats generally support the plan, Senate Republicans, including Senate Finance Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have remained critical or silent. Some Senate Republicans have concerns about the cost of the child tax credit and the proposed offsets. The bill needs at least 60 votes to pass in the Senate, suggesting possible further amendments to gain Republican support.The timing of the bill's passage is crucial, as the House returns on the same date tax filing begins, January 29. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel noted the challenges of implementing tax changes so close to the filing season but expressed confidence, as did Richard Neal, in the IRS's ability to adapt. However, National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins warned that changes during the filing season could disrupt the process, potentially delaying refunds and increasing IRS call volumes. Collins advocates for a provision allowing the IRS to adjust credits post-filing to avoid the need for amended returns, addressing an existing backlog issue.What's Next for the Tax Bill? Three Questions After Panel Markup Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Civil Rights: Does Oklahoma's ban on "gender affirming care" for minors discriminate on the basis of sex? - Argued: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 9:3:26 EDT

Featuring:Ms. Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCMr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLCHon. Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale; Former United States Solicitor GeneralModerator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Sandra Engel: is a graduate Executive Coach who comes to the field with a background in the areas of law and leadership. She has recently retired from the bench as a criminal judge in Albuquerque, New Mexico where she served her community for over 16 years. She is also a licensed and active attorney, previously serving as an Assistant District Attorney for over ten years and has practiced law in the civil and criminal areas for over 25 years. During that time, she has served as supervisor over divisions/teams, and most recently served as Chief Judge of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, managing a courthouse, and leading a C-Suite with over 350 employees. She has performed as a trainer, evaluator, and resource director for several court and community programs. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Marketing, and a Juris Doctor degree, both from the University of Alabama. She most recently completed her training with Coaching Out of the Box, an executive coaching program that is accredited and certified by the International Coaching Federation (ICF). She also received her certification from ICF as an Associate Certified Coach. She is a Certified Diversity coach, a member of ICF International and her local chapter, ICFNM, and serves on their board. She is involved in both the local coaching community and legal community in a variety of roles. She specializes in leadership/executive coaching, working with many business leaders and executives.Barbara J. Vigil: served on the New Mexico state judiciary for twenty-one years. For twelve years, she served as a District Court Judge in n the First Judicial District and for over nine years as a Justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court. Barbara stepped down from the Supreme Court on June 30, 2021. In August 2021 Barbara was appointed to serve as Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department. On May 1, she left that role to pursue other interests. As a District Court Judge, Barbara presided over the children and family court docket for over 10 years resolving over 16,000 cases. In 2010 she was chosen by her peers to serve for two years as Chief Judge of the First Judicial District Court. During her last two years on the trial court bench, she presided over the civil docket. In 2012, Barbara was elected as a Justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court, where she served as an Associate Justice, Chief Justice from 2014-2016 and as Senior Justice. Throughout her judicial career Barbara strived to improve court processes and procedures for children and families. She worked with community stakeholders to garner state and federal funding for programs designed to help children throughout the state. Barbara has served on numerous boards, commissions, and committees, including the Tribal State Judicial Consortium, the Children's Court Improvement Commission, and the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners. Barbara was born in Albuquerque and grew up in Santa Fe, New Mexico. She received a bachelor's degree in accounting from New Mexico State University and a juris doctorate from the University of New Mexico School of Law. Barbara enjoys travelling abroad and using her free time to support youth and court improvements. Barbara travels extensively abroad. She maintains a lifelong commitment to public service and does all she can to improve the lives of children and families. Judge Shammara H. Henderson: was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2020 by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. Born and raised in Albuquerque, NM, she graduated from Valley High School. She received a bachelor's degree from American University in Washington, D.C., where she received a full ride with the highly competitive Frederick Douglass Scholarship. She received her J.D. from the University of New Mexico School of Law where she received the W.E. Bondurant Scholarship and University of New Mexico Graduate Fellowship.After graduating from law school, she clerked for Justice Charles W. Daniels at the New Mexico Supreme Court. She started her career as a litigator with the Second Judicial District Attorney's Office. She later became the Associate General Counsel for the Office of Governor. In 2011, Judge Henderson joined the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico. She successfully tried criminal and civil cases in the United States District Court and appealed criminal cases in the Tenth Circuit. She developed and presented training and outreach programs across the state for law enforcement as well as community organizations and churches. In 2017, Judge Henderson co-founded her own law firm Henderson & Grohman, PC, which joined Freedman, Boyd, Hollander, Goldberg, Urias, & Ward, PA in October of 2018 where she represented clients in criminal, civil, and administrative matters in both state and federal courts at the trial and appellate level.Judge Henderson enjoys spending time with friends and family, traveling, barre, yoga, and rollershaking as well as community service.Judge Brett R. Loveless: Presiding Criminal Judge for the Second Judicial District Court (Bernalillo County) handling an exclusive docket of felony level criminal cases. Judge Loveless took the bench in 2012.Prior to that was a prosecutor in the Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office for approximately 12 yearsPracticed civil law for approximately five years, doing both plaintiff's work and civil defense.1995 graduate of UNM School of Law.

Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of ConscienceIn one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell provide an insightful overview of the legal history and meaning of the clause, as well as its value for promoting equal religious freedom and diversity in contemporary America.The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", may be the most contentious and misunderstood provision of the entire U.S. Constitution. It lies at the heart of America's culture wars. But what, exactly, is an "establishment of religion"? And what is a law "respecting" it?Many commentators reduce the clause to "the separation of church and state." This implies that church and state are at odds, that the public sphere must be secular, and that the Establishment Clause is in tension with the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. All of these implications misconstrue the Establishment Clause's original purpose and enduring value for a religiously pluralistic society. The clause facilitates religious diversity and guarantees equality of religious freedom by prohibiting the government from coercing or inducing citizens to change their religious beliefs and practices.In Agreeing to Disagree, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of the Establishment Clause, state disestablishment, and the disestablishment norms applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Americans in the early Republic were intimately acquainted with the laws used in England, the colonies, and early states to enforce religious uniformity. The Establishment Clause was understood to prohibit the government from incentivizing such uniformity. Chapman and McConnell show how the U.S. Supreme Court has largely implemented these purposes in cases addressing prayer in school, state funding of religious schools, religious symbols on public property, and limits on religious accommodations. In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause, Chapman and McConnell argue that the clause is best understood as a constitutional commitment for Americans to agree to disagree about matters of faith.Nathan S. Chapman is the Pope F. Brock Associate Professor of Professional Responsibility at the University of Georgia School of Law, and a McDonald Distinguished Fellow of Law and Religion at the Emory Center for Law and Religion. He was formerly the Executive Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to 2009, he served as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has argued sixteen cases in the United States Supreme Court, six of which involved the Religion Clauses. McConnell is also co-editor of Religion and the Constitution and Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought. His most recent book is The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution.Buy the book from Wellington Square Bookshop - ​https://wellingtonsquarebooks.indiecommerce.com/book/9780195304664

U.S. Forest Service Illegitimately Created Crimes, Prosecuted Skier over Instagram Post NCLA filed an opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, appealing its client David Lesh's contested criminal convictions for violating two regulations promulgated by  the U.S. Forest Service. NCLA argues that the government failed to prove essential elements of its allegations, and it punished Mr. Lesh in violation of his First Amendment free speech rights. In addition, because these regulatory violations are classified as so-called petty offenses, the courts below denied Mr. Lesh his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Finally, Lesh's convictions must be overturned because the regulations USFS promulgated specify criminal violations, a legislative function that is solely Congress's prerogative. NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins describes the issues in the Tenth Circuit appeal in U.S. v. Lesh. NCLA Calls Out CPSC Commissioner Trumka's Deliberate Efforts to Ban DockATotInfant Loungers NCLA has sent a formal letter to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission detailing how CPSC, and Commissioner Richard Trumka in particular, have severely violated the constitutional and statutory rights of NCLA client Wildchild Stockholm, Inc. Wildchild, founded by mom and entrepreneur Lisa Furuland Kotsianis, designs and imports the award-winning, Scandinavian-inspired DockATot® Deluxe+ docks. The letter states that Commissioner Trumka has taken deliberate actions and made specific statements that infringe on Wildchild's constitutional right to have a fair and impartial tribunal. Kara Rollins explains the latest developments in this case.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We have an interesting “this day in legal history” for today – its Benjamin Cardozo's birthday. If he were alive today he'd be 153 years old and thus very dead. Who is he? Well…Benjamin Cardozo, born on May 24, 1870, in New York City, was an influential associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1932 to 1938. He was known for his creative approach to common-law judging and legal essay writing, which played a significant role in modernizing legal principles and promoting greater involvement with public policy in American appellate judging. While generally considered a liberal, Cardozo's focus was more on the nature of the judicial process than ideology. His most notable contributions were made during his time on the New York Court of Appeals, where he served from 1914 to 1932, including as chief judge from 1926. Cardozo came from a distinguished Sephardic Jewish family and had a stellar personal reputation. As a lawyer, he achieved great success in the courtroom despite his reserved demeanor. Cardozo's decisions in landmark cases such as MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company (1916) and Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) reshaped legal concepts in the United States. In 1932, he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Herbert Hoover. During the New Deal era, Cardozo generally aligned with liberal justices and wrote significant opinions, including the majority opinion in Helvering v. Davis (1937), upholding the Social Security program. His ruling in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) introduced a test for incorporating provisions of the Bill of Rights into state law, which remained in use until 1969. Cardozo's jurisprudential work, particularly his book "The Nature of the Judicial Process" (1921), and his involvement with the American Law Institute further solidify his lasting impact on American law. Benjamin Cardozo's contributions as a jurist continue to shape legal thinking and practice to this day.Jabari Wamble, a federal prosecutor and nominee for a federal trial court judge in the District of Kansas, has requested the White House to withdraw his nomination. In a letter to President Joe Biden, Wamble cited his decision to continue his work at the United States Attorney's Office in the District of Kansas. Initially nominated for a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last year, Wamble did not receive a hearing or a rating from the American Bar Association (ABA), which is customary for federal judicial nominees. Subsequently, Biden nominated him for the trial court judgeship in February, but his confirmation process once again stalled without a hearing. The ABA has not yet rated Wamble's qualifications for the district court position. It was anticipated that he would receive a "not qualified" rating from the ABA. This withdrawal follows another recent withdrawal by Michael Delaney, who asked to withdraw his nomination for a judge on the First Circuit due to bipartisan concerns surrounding his prior representation in a sex assault litigation case.US District Court Nominee Wamble Withdraws from Consideration (1)Chief Justice John Roberts has expressed his commitment to upholding the highest standards of conduct in the Supreme Court. Speaking at an awards ceremony hosted by the American Law Institute, Roberts assured the public and Congress of his dedication to maintaining the court's integrity. He acknowledged the ongoing scrutiny faced by some justices and emphasized the court's efforts to explore practical measures to ensure ethical standards. Roberts's comments come as Congress investigates the conduct of Justice Clarence Thomas and considers legislation for a code of conduct for the high court. The court has recently faced ethical controversies, including questions surrounding vacations and benefits received by Thomas from a Republican donor and his involvement in cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack. Calls for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court have been amplified by these controversies. Despite the challenges, Roberts has remained mostly silent, declining to testify on ethics reform and attaching a statement signed by all nine justices that reiterates the court's existing ethics practices. Roberts also mentioned the difficulties faced by the court, such as protests outside the homes of justices and the need for round-the-clock marshal protection. The Supreme Court has undergone significant changes with the appointment of three conservative justices under former President Donald Trump, leading to key decisions on abortion rights, gun regulations, religious rights, and federal regulatory power. Roberts, who has occasionally sought to slow down the pace of change, voiced his unsuccessful dissent in last year's abortion case. The court is nearing the end of its current term, with pending decisions on various important issues. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan presented an award to Roberts, highlighting their disagreements but also acknowledging his judicial craftsmanship. So, uh, are your concerns allayed? Chief Justice Roberts Says He's Committed to Highest StandardsReps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Mike Carey (R-Ohio) have introduced the Simplify Automatic Filing Extensions Act, a bipartisan proposal aimed at helping taxpayers qualify for extensions on their federal tax returns. The bill seeks to change the rules regarding tax return deadlines, allowing taxpayers to make a payment of 125% of their prior year's tax liability to qualify for a six-month extension. Currently, taxpayers requesting an extension must estimate and make a payment based on their current year's tax liability. The lawmakers argue that simplifying the process will reduce stress, improve taxpayer compliance, and allow the government to continue providing essential services. The proposal has garnered support from the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants.Bipartisan House Pair Introduces New Tax Return Extension BillThe U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling by the end of June on whether colleges and universities can continue to consider race in their admissions decisions, known as affirmative action. Affirmative action refers to policies aimed at increasing the representation of minority students, such as Black and Hispanic individuals, on campuses. Many selective schools take race into consideration as part of a holistic review process that considers various factors. The litigation before the Supreme Court involves two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions, challenging the admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The court's conservative majority has expressed skepticism about the role of race in admissions, leading legal analysts to anticipate a ruling against the schools. If the court were to ban affirmative action, colleges and universities would need to find alternative ways to promote diversity in their student populations, as eliminating race-conscious admissions could result in fewer minority students on campuses. The possible outcomes include maintaining the current system, eliminating affirmative action entirely, or establishing more stringent limits on the practice.Explainer: What happens if the Supreme Court bans affirmative action? | ReutersU.S. Supreme Court conservatives lean against race-conscious student admissions | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Federalism: May Tulsa enforce its municipal against Native American citizens? - Argued: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:27:21 EDT

Intellectual Property: Was Netflix's use of a YouTube video in the Tiger King documentary fair use? - Argued: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 11:19:57 EDT

Petitioners-all foreign nationals-were subjected to a $90 million damages award under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., for allegedly infringing respondent's U.S. trademarks. While trademark rights are distinctly territorial, the accused sales occurred almost entirely abroad. Of approximately $90 million in sales, 97% were purely foreign: They were sales in foreign countries, by foreign sellers, to foreign customers, for use in foreign countries, that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers. The Tenth Circuit nonetheless held that the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially to all of petitioners' foreign sales. Recognizing that the circuits have splintered in this area, the Tenth Circuit adopted an expansive view that other courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have concededly rejected. Under the Tenth Circuit's view, the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially whenever foreign defendants' foreign conduct allegedly diverts foreign sales from a U.S. plaintiff. Such an effect, the court held, sufficiently affects U.S. commerce because it prevents foreign revenue from flowing into the U.S. economy. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to petitioners' foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.

U.S. District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins shares in this episode recorded in 2023 his recollections at age 95 about the most important case he ever worked on—the hard-fought Utah “Downwinders” lawsuit.   The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) conducted above-ground testing of nuclear devices in 1953 in southern Nevada. Ranchers living southern Utah, downwind of the Nevada nuclear testing filed five lawsuits against the United States government in 1955-56, seeking damages for harm to their sheep herds from exposure to radioactive fallout. In the lead case, U.S. District Judge Sherman Christensen rejected the claims, ruling the plaintiffs failed to prove the government was negligent.  Bulloch v. United States, 145 F.Supp. 824 (D. Utah. 1956). Judge Christensen reopened the case more than 20 years later after evidence of AEC deception in 1956 came to light in 1979 congressional hearings, but the Tenth Circuit reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case.. See Bulloch v. United States, 95 F.R.D. 123 (D. Utah 1982), and 763 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert denied, 474 U.S. 1086 (1986). Meanwhile, in 1979 a group of nearly 1,200 plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit called Irene Allen v. United States, challenging their exposure to the downwind radiation from the AEC testing.  After a remarkable 13-week bench trial, Judge Jenkins issued a 225-page decision finding in favor of claims by 24 “bellwether” plaintiffs against the federal government. 588 F.Supp. 247 (D. Utah 1984). The trial transcript spans over 7,000 pages, with more than 54,000 pages of exhibits.  Judge Jenkins spent 17 months preparing his written decision. The government appealed Judge Jenkins' ruling to the Tenth Circuit, which reversed, holding that the government could not be sued for such claims because of sovereign immunity concepts, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  816 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1987), cert denied, 484 U.S. 1004 (1988). Judge Jenkins' ruling nevertheless prompted Congress to pass the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990 to create a trust fund to compensate Downwinders. In this podcast episode Judge Jenkins reflects on the complex trial testimony in Allen, and on scientific uncertainty and the evolution of scientific knowledge. He also discusses how he approached learning about the scientific concepts the Allen case required him to consider. Judge Jenkins also comments on the Tenth Circuit's reversal of his decision, which paradoxically prompted Congress to act to provide reimbursement to the injured downwinders.  

Let's meet the halfway point in the week head-on and take a peek at today's legal news.  The US Supreme Court is deciding whether US trademark law applies to foreign conduct in a case involving a $90m infringement award over radio remote controls. The Tenth Circuit upheld a $115m award, including $90m in trademark infringement damages, to Hetronic International against Abitron Germany for infringing radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment sold worldwide. While Abitron maintained that nearly all its conduct was international and therefore the Tenth Circuit had overreached, Hetronic argued the focus should be on whether actions caused consumer confusion in the US. The case has raised concerns about the reach of US trademark law into other jurisdictions, but the justices have also indicated that Congress' authority over US commerce becomes difficult to square with arguments limiting the reach of trademark law in a global, internet-connected context. IP attorney Mark Lezama of Knobbe Martens said the majority of justices appeared to be in favour of reversing the Tenth Circuit's judgment in large part and limiting the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act.By way of brief background, the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946, is a United States federal law that governs trademarks, service marks, and unfair competition. It provides for the registration of trademarks and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and establishes procedures for enforcing trademark rights. The Lanham Act prohibits false advertising, false designation of origin, and other deceptive practices that may confuse consumers about the source or quality of goods or services. It also provides for remedies such as injunctions, damages, and attorney's fees in cases of trademark infringement. The Lanham Act has been amended several times over the years to keep pace with changes in technology and commerce, but it remains an important tool for protecting intellectual property rights in the United States and, maybe now, worldwide. Justices Weigh Trademark Law's Reach Against Global Commerce (1) Texas and Idaho will operate under a federal waters rule that was in place before March 20, after a federal court barred the Biden administration's 2023 waters of the US (WOTUS) rule from being implemented in those states. The new rule is designed to protect water quality in major waterways across the US, and impacts housing, agricultural, mining and other development projects in every state, as a permit is required to disturb federally protected waters and wetlands. The definition of federally protected waters under the Clean Water Act has been subject to a complex series of challenges and revisions, including a 2008-15 rule, the Obama administration's expansion of federally protected waters and wetlands, a subsequent court decision rejecting that rule, and the Trump administration's changes to WOTUS. The Biden administration is facing five lawsuits challenging its 2023 rule, brought by at least 26 states and industry groups. Although the injunction against the rule in Texas and Idaho is not expected to affect the other lawsuits, a Supreme Court case, Sackett v. EPA, could undermine the significant nexus test that is currently used to determine whether waters and wetlands are protected under the law, potentially prompting further litigation.‘Bizarre' Texas Injunction Means Past US Waters Rule in Effect Manhattan prosecutors are expected to decide within days whether to bring charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in hush-money payments made by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies having had an affair with Daniels. The inquiry into the payments opened and closed several times, leading to the case being referred to as a "zombie case". Doubts had arisen as to whether state felony charges could be brought against a candidate for federal office, and whether the conduct could be considered money laundering. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg launched the probe after his predecessor Cyrus Vance twice looked into the payment and did not bring charges. The new prosecutor is reportedly approaching the case with a different legal theory. Trump, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency again in 2024, has called the probe a "witch hunt" – which is probably accurate … if there really was a witch and it really had paid off an adult film actress. Trump hush-money charges would bring 'zombie case' back to lifeContent warning here for a hateful law enacted by a hateful person, with my condolences to all the good people in Arkansas that aren't currently governor. If you want to hop off here and catch up with us tomorrow, this is our last story of the day. Have a great one.On Tuesday, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law that prohibits transgender individuals from using public school restrooms that match their gender identity. The law applies to multi-person restrooms and locker rooms in public schools and charter schools serving pre-K through grade 12. The law requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations, such as single-person restrooms and changing areas, and school authorities that violate the law can face fines of at least $1,000, while parents can file lawsuits to enforce the measure. A spokesperson for Sanders said that the governor is focusing on protecting and educating children, not “indoctrinating” them – and indoctrinating should be viewed with huge sarcastic air quotes. This law is similar to ones in Alabama and Oklahoma that are aimed at making life miserable for transgender youth, while Republican legislators across the United States have been campaigning to ban healthcare for them. Some are even seeking to charge parents and doctors with child abuse if they provide treatment, all are aiding and abetting their most extreme colleagues by putting party loyalty ahead of basic human decency. Arkansas enacts law restricting school bathroom use by transgender people  Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

When it comes to the LGBTQ- agenda and its promotion, at the beginning we were told to simply tolerate it. Then we were told to show acceptance. After that we were told we must celebrate it. Now we are being forced to participate in it.--The featured example on this edition of Crosstalk involved the College of the Ozarks, a Christian college in Missouri. They are seeking to sue the Biden administration as the college is being forced to violate its religious beliefs by opening its dorms and shower spaces to members of the opposite sex or face fines up to six figures, pay punitive damages, and attorney fees.--Joining Jim to discuss this case was Julie Blake. Julie serves as senior counsel for regulatory litigation at Alliance Defending Freedom. She previously served as deputy solicitor general for the state of Missouri and as an assistant solicitor general for the state of West Virginia. Also, previously following law school, she served as a law clerk for Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. She is admitted to practice in multiple states, the Supreme Court, and in many federal district and appellate courts.

When it comes to the LGBTQ- agenda and its promotion, at the beginning we were told to simply tolerate it. Then we were told to show acceptance. After that we were told we must celebrate it. Now we are being forced to participate in it.--The featured example on this edition of Crosstalk involved the College of the Ozarks, a Christian college in Missouri. They are seeking to sue the Biden administration as the college is being forced to violate its religious beliefs by opening its dorms and shower spaces to members of the opposite sex or face fines up to six figures, pay punitive damages, and attorney fees.--Joining Jim to discuss this case was Julie Blake. Julie serves as senior counsel for regulatory litigation at Alliance Defending Freedom. She previously served as deputy solicitor general for the state of Missouri and as an assistant solicitor general for the state of West Virginia. Also, previously following law school, she served as a law clerk for Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. She is admitted to practice in multiple states, the Supreme Court, and in many federal district and appellate courts.

Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Dissenting Opinion The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.   The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.   Music by Epidemic Sound  

Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Majority Opinion  The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.   The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.   Music by Epidemic Sound  

QUESTION PRESENTED: Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith. But the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) requires her to create custom websites celebrating same-sex marriage and prohibits her statement--even though Colorado stipulates that she "work[s] with all people regardless of ... sexual orientation." App.53a, 184a. The Tenth Circuit applied strict scrutiny and astonishingly concluded that the government may, based on content and viewpoint, force Lorie to convey messages that violate her religious beliefs and restrict her from explaining her faith. The court also upheld CADA under Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), even though CADA creates a "gerrymander" where secular artists can decline to speak but religious artists cannot, meaning the government can compel its approved messages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to the artist's sincerely held religious beliefs, violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. 2. Whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable under Smith, and if so, whether this Court should overrule Smith. GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER APPLYING A PUBLIC-ACCOMMODATION LAW TO COMPEL AN ARTIST TO SPEAK OR STAY SILENT VIOLATES THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-476.html

On December 5,2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Petitioner Lorie Smith, an artist in Colorado and owner/founder of the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC. is challenging Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) on the grounds it is unconstitutional, arguing, among other things, it violates her right to free speech.Ms. Smith was looking to expand her business to include designing websites for weddings but would only design for weddings that were in line with her religious convictions, which meant she would not design websites for same-sex weddings. Further, in expanding her business, she wanted to post a message to her own professional website to communicate what wedding websites she would do, and explain her religious objections to same-sex weddings.Because 303 Creative LLC. is a business open to the public, however, it falls under CADA, which prohibits any business from discriminating against possible patrons based on a list of characteristics, one of which is sexual identity. Further, CADA defines discrimination not only as the refusal to provide goods or services but also as the promulgation of messaging that says or implies that a potential patron’s business would be unwelcome based on them possessing a protected trait. Under CADA, both the refusal to create webpages for same sex weddings and the promulgation of a message that Ms. Smith would not create such webpages, even if she is never asked so to do, would be illegal.Before any action was taken against her under CADA, Ms. Smith and 303 Creative LLC. challenged CADA in federal court, alleging its unconstitutionality. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of Colorado, and upon appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision.Our panel of experts will break down and analyze how the Supreme Court oral argument went the same day. Featuring: Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for ProsperityProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law[Moderator] Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Welcome to Strategy Skills episode 256, an episode with an expert in business law and business ethics, J.S. Nelson. Get J.S's book here: https://amzn.to/3C8am91 Managing business ethics has always been a challenge for many organizations. As unethical business conduct rises, the struggle of implementing ethics and compliance programs in organizations also increases. Business ethics can make or break your business or career. But it can be used as a competitive advantage if managed correctly and can build the most valuable asset: your reputation. The key is to articulate your organization's values – defining who you are, what you stand for, and extending it toward every inch of your organization. It's very important for management to cultivate a culture of openness, where people feel safe to speak up and where ethical misconduct is not tolerated. As J.S. mentioned in this episode, “the way to get the behavior that you want is to intervene early and often.” In this episode, J.S speaks about the value of business ethics, the major schools of philosophical ethical thought, and how understanding it can help people become better at being ethical. She discusses the ways an organization can cultivate ethical behavior and how to get away from situations involving ethical traps in the modern business world.  Nelson is an expert in business law and business ethics. She is a visiting professor at Harvard Business School. Nelson was the first tenure-track appointment in a U.S. law school, specifically to teach business ethics and to develop law-school curricula around the subject. Nelson has spent nearly fifteen years teaching at top universities across the country, including Villanova Law School, the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Haas Business School of the University of California at Berkeley, Drucker School at Claremont Graduate University, and the Mihaylo School at Cal State Fullerton. Prior to her work in academia, Professor Nelson served as staff counsel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and she clerked for the Honorable David M. Ebel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Honorable William H. Yohn Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She also worked as a deputy district attorney and as a business litigator in Denver, Colorado. Nelson graduated from Harvard Law School, where she was the Supreme Court Co-Chair of the Harvard Law Review. She earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with honors and distinction in the major from Yale. Get J.S's book here: Business Ethics: What Everyone Needs to Know, J.S. Nelson & Lynn A. Stout: https://amzn.to/3C8am91 Enjoying our podcast? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

When the state exercises its police power and as a result damages property, is there a constitutional obligation to pay for that damage? Jeffrey Redfern of the Institute for Justice joins to podcast to discuss Baker v. City of McKinney, a case he tried and won in June of this year in the Eastern District of Texas. Jeffrey shares with us how this court arrived at a decision different from the Tenth Circuit in Lech v. Jackson. Practitioners will also find his insights on voir dire invaluable.   For more on Lech v. Jackson, listen to Episode 81 here.   Jeffrey's Recommendations: Short Circuit Podcast Bound by Oath Podcast Barbarian Days by William Finnegan   Please share your thoughts on the show or this episode with me. I'm on Twitter @J_Clint. If you have thoughts about future show guests or ideas for episodes, please let me know.

While polls of Republican voters still show strong support for former president Trump, some of the most powerful testimony against him during the January 6 Congressional hearings have been by members of his administration and party. In this episode we hear from Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell, a former judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit nominated by President George W. Bush, about a new report he co-authored, Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election, which examined every count of every case of election irregularities brought by Trump's team in six battleground states—and concluded that “Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.”

While polls of Republican voters still show strong support for former president Trump, some of the most powerful testimony against him during the January 6 Congressional hearings have been by members of his administration and party. In this episode we hear from Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell, a former judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit nominated by President George W. Bush, about a new report he co-authored, Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election, which examined every count of every case of election irregularities brought by Trump's team in six battleground states—and concluded that “Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.” Originally aired on SiriusXM on July 30, 2022.

In this episode, Dallas Shareholder Bina Palnitkar joins Jordan to discuss the Tenth Circuit's recent decision affirming a judgment in a trade secret case, which analyzes issues of causation, exemplary damages and attorney fee awards under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Welcome to Strategy Skills episode 256, an episode with an expert in business law and business ethics, J.S. Nelson. Get J.S's book here: https://amzn.to/3ny1z9B Managing business ethics has always been a challenge for many organizations. As unethical business conduct rises, the struggle of implementing ethics and compliance programs in organizations also increases. Business ethics can make or break your business or career. But it can be used as a competitive advantage if managed correctly and can build the most valuable asset: your reputation. The key is to articulate your organization's values – defining who you are, what you stand for, and extending it toward every inch of your organization. It's very important for management to cultivate a culture of openness, where people feel safe to speak up and where ethical misconduct is not tolerated. As J.S. mentioned in this episode, “the way to get the behavior that you want is to intervene early and often.” In this episode, J.S speaks about the value of business ethics, the major schools of philosophical ethical thought, and how understanding it can help people become better at being ethical. She discusses the ways an organization can cultivate ethical behavior and how to get away from situations involving ethical traps in the modern business world.  Nelson is an expert in business law and business ethics. She is a visiting professor at Harvard Business School. Nelson was the first tenure-track appointment in a U.S. law school, specifically to teach business ethics and to develop law-school curricula around the subject. Nelson has spent nearly fifteen years teaching at top universities across the country, including Villanova Law School, the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Haas Business School of the University of California at Berkeley, Drucker School at Claremont Graduate University, and the Mihaylo School at Cal State Fullerton. Prior to her work in academia, Professor Nelson served as staff counsel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and she clerked for the Honorable David M. Ebel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Honorable William H. Yohn Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She also worked as a deputy district attorney and as a business litigator in Denver, Colorado. Nelson graduated from Harvard Law School, where she was the Supreme Court Co-Chair of the Harvard Law Review. She earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with honors and distinction in the major from Yale. Get J.S's book here: Business Ethics: What Everyone Needs to Know, J.S. Nelson & Lynn A. Stout: https://amzn.to/3ny1z9B Enjoying our podcast? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

In Today's episode of "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Josh Craddock, Lawyer and Affiliated Scholar at the James Wilson Institute, to discuss the history of abortion law in the United States, the legal arguments from the majority opinion, concurrences, and dissent in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the future of the pro-life movement, and the implications of the Dobb's decision which overturned Roe v. Wade.Josh Craddock, a 2019 James Wilson fellow and newly named Affiliated Scholar. In the past, he worked at Bancroft PLLC, and clerked for Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. At Harvard Law School, he led the Journal of Law & Public Policy as its editor-in-chief. He has been a contributor to National Review, First Things, Public Discourse and Providence Magazine. Craddock holds a B.A. in politics, philosophy and economics from The King's College and a J.D. from the Harvard Law School.Learn more about Josh Craddock's work:http://joshcraddock.comhttp://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/2020/03/fellowship-alumni-spotlight-josh-craddock-19/https://twitter.com/joshjcraddock––––––Follow American Moment across Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-695775Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced by American Moment Studios, and edited by Jake Mercier and Jared Cummings.Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAj Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this edition, host Jonathan Amarilio and co-host Margaret Mendenhall Casey are joined by Judge Robert Bacharach of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to discuss his recent book “Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written Word” and what advocates should consider when crafting persuasive arguments. Special thanks to our sponsors: InfoTrack, Posh Virtual Receptionists, LLC, and Smokeball.