Podcasts about united states court

It's not uncommon, to put the matter lightly, to find Jewish Americans well represented in the legal field. But the conventional storybook narrative of how Jews rise to occupy positions of promise and prestige in the law tends to emphasize the gradual softening or quieting of religious observance in favor of a broader, more secular American identity.   I remember back in 2010 when Elena Kagan had been nominated by President Obama to serve on the Supreme Court. In response to a question from Senator Lindsay Graham about a domestic terrorist event that took place on December 25, 2009, Elena Kagan—then dean of Harvard Law and since 2010 a Supreme Court justice—explained that, on that day, “like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.” It was funny and charming and played perfectly to the room and the cameras looking on. But Elena Kagan's remark also illustrates, to me at least, precisely the sort of culturally Jewish secular sensibility that you wouldn't be surprised to find in elite positions like the ones she's held. There are, of course, religiously observant Jewish lawyers, some of them extremely accomplished and some of them having contributed greatly to the American constitutional order.    Matthew Solomson is not only a lawyer but a federal judge who represents a different model and different sense of identity, one in which deep Orthodox commitment and distinguished public service not only coexist but reinforce one another. Judge Solomson was elevated to the federal bench in 2020, and last month the president designated him as the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.   Rather than abandoning his Jewish observance and religious devotion in the name of secular citizenship, Judge Solomson is staking out a different path, and his example suggests that America is strengthened when its citizens bring their deepest commitments—including religious commitments—to bear on public service. In conversation with Jonathan Silver, he addresses the questions his career raises about the very nature of American democracy, the meaning of Jewish life in America, and the possibilities for religious citizens to serve the United States in an increasingly secular age.

SEASON 3 EPISODE 130: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) BREAKING NEWS: A Reagan judge, an Obama judge, and a Trump judge walk into a courtroom and rule Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs - which not only crashed our economy but that of the entire world's - are not a legal use of the 1977 laws empowering him to take actions in the event of an economic emergency. This is not just any court. It's the United States Court of International Trade. Trump already appealed. Stephen Miller already called it a "judicial coup." The fact that America's corporations simply went along with Trump's crap when it knew - as the court knew - this was executive overreach - is its own problem. The halt on the tariffs will itself probably be halted by the appeals. So the re-shaping of the market will be re-re-shaped by the judges, and re-re-re-shaped by the further litigation. That, of course, is not Trump's problem. His only job is to break stuff. SPECIAL COMMENT: Now it's Governor Gretchen Whitmer has learned the lesson - twice. Never appease Trump, never negotiate with Trump, never cooperate with Trump, never support anything Trump wants, never do anything Trump wants. All that registers with him is: you are easier for him to destroy. She sucked up to him. She worked with him. He tricked her into appearing at his photo-op. She hid her face behind a folder like it was a perp walk. Now, he says he's looking into PARDONING THE TERRORISTS CONVICTED OF TRYING TO KIDNAP HER. There is only one way Gretchen Whitmer is going to SURVIVE Trump, Governor. Apple is going to SURVIVE Trump, Tim Cook. There is only one way Columbia is going to SURVIVE Trump, Claire Shipman. There is only one way the White House Correspondents are going to SURVIVE Trump, Eugene Daniels. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’ll spell it out. Doing what he wants only tells him you will DO WHAT HE WANTS. So he comes back and gives you ANOTHER list of what he wants. He’s a blackmailer. He’s a crooked businessman. He’s a bully. There is only one way to SURVIVE Trump and that is to DESTROY Trump. In a world of White House Correspondents, be the PENTAGON Correspondents. In a world of Apples, be Wal-Mart. In a world of Columbias, be a Harvard. Put your hands on Trump’s shoulders and knee him in the groin. Stand up to him and you can then own HIM, like the Harvard newspaper op-ed writer who has proposed settling the disputes between her school and Trump by challenging Secretary of "Education" Linda McMahon, the wife of the wrestling slime bag, to a Steel Cage Match. ALSO: TRUMP CONFESSES to operating on Russia's behalf and to protecting Putin. HE LEARNS for the first time of the Wall Street analysts mocking him with the tariff acronym "TACO" ("Trump Always Chickens Out") and he chickens out. Turns out Tom Homan also worked for the top Private Prison company. A woman who contributed a million to Trump gets a pardon for her jailbird son. Anybody remember Rudy Giuliani's alleged boast he could sell you a pardon for two million, to be split between him and Trump. And a past president's grandson has died. The president he was the grandson of, left office in... 1845. B-Block (33:00) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Kristi Noem and the camel she rode in on. Jesse Watters and Rep. Tim Burchett try to make fun of men using straws not remembering there's a photo of Trump at Yankee Stadium using a straw. And boy did THIS sound familiar: Rupert Murdoch just buried a New York Post reporter who followed all the rules and instructions Murdoch's minions had laid out for him, because somebody didn't like the story... Just like in 2001 Rupert personally fired ME for doing exactly the same thing (C-Block 43:00 THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL). The punchline is the reporter's name is Josh Kosman and last September he was the guy at The Post who called and told me they were about to update the RFK Jr/Olivia Nuzzi sexting story by claiming I had lived with Olivia. So I busted his scoop and put the story out immediately. Now we're in the Rupert Isn't A Journalist Club. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Trump kicks off his first major foreign trip as he looks to strengthen ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) joins Meet the Press NOW as House lawmakers hold pivotal meetings on how to advance a bill to fund President Trump's agenda. The United States Court of International Trade hears arguments in a case that could decide the fate of President Trump's tariffs.

Part 1:We talk with Joe Jaworsksi, a third-generation Texas trial attorney and former Mayor of Galveston, Texas. He has served as a law clerk to the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, and he has spent over 30 years in private practice as a trial attorney, mediator, and legal commentator. and can be heard on KPFT in Houston TX Tuesday mornings at 9:30am The Midterms.We discuss the political landscape in Texas. Ken Paxton is running for US Senate, to replace John Cornyn. Paxton is targeting Latino Democrats legally.For the first time, Trump's approval rating on the economy is low in Texas. This appears to be due to tariffs and other price shocks. Infrastructure for any new manufacturing is being neglected.Part 2:We talk with Bill Curry and Jamie Rowen.Bill Curry was a Connecticut state senator, comptroller and two time Democratic nominee for governor who served as Counselor to the President in the Clinton White House. He has written for Salon, the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post and the Hartford Courant and has provided commentary on National Public Radio, MSNBC and many other news outlets.Dr. Rowen is an associate professor of Legal Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the founding director of UMass' Center for Justice, Law, and Societies. Her work focuses on both domestic and international criminal law. Her book, Worthy of Justice: The Politics of Veterans Treatment Courts in Practice, is forthcoming with Stanford University Press in December 2025.We discuss the corruption endemic to the US now with the Trump White House leading the way. NH has now adopted a crypto currency reserve into its budget, the first in the nation to do so, likely to be followed by other states.Cuts to research projects under NIH and other agencies has created a pool of "Research refugees" who are leaving for other countries to continue their research. This will have dire consequences for US leadership in many technologies in future. Music: David RovicsWNHNFM.ORG  production 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.The case was decided on April 30, 2025.Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast Guard reserve petty officer, was called to active duty in July 2012 under 10 U-S-C §12301(d). He served until February 2017, primarily escorting vessels to and from harbor. Despite his active-duty service, Feliciano did not receive differential pay, which compensates federal civilian employees for the pay gap between their civilian and military salaries when called to active duty during a national emergency.Feliciano sought relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming he was unlawfully denied differential pay. The Board rejected his claim, and Feliciano appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He argued that under 5 U-S-C §5538(a) and 10 U-S-C §101(a)(13)(B), he was entitled to differential pay because he was called to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency. The Federal Circuit, referencing its decision in Adams v Department of Homeland Security, held that Feliciano needed to show a substantive connection between his service and a particular national emergency, which he failed to do.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Federal Circuit's decision. The Court held that a federal civilian employee called to active duty under "any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency" is entitled to differential pay if the reservist's service coincides temporally with a declared national emergency. The Court determined that no substantive connection between the service and the national emergency is required. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship has reignited debates over the 14th Amendment and the meaning of citizenship in America. Legal experts Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School analyze the legal challenges surrounding birthright citizenship, explore the constitutional and historical arguments on all sides of this debate, and discuss its broader implications for immigration. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2025) Trump v. Washington, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025) Trump v. New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2025) Amanda Frost, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers (2021) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2025) Ilan Wurman and Randy Barnett, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-27 (April 14, 2025) Gabriel “Jack” Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 54 (April 8, 2021) Gabriel J. Chin, “America Has Freaked Out Over Birthright Citizenship For Centuries,” Talking Points Memo (Aug. 2015) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Kurt Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) 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. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

Judge Wallace shares that we will have successful lives if we prioritize our families and church service above our other pursuits. J. Clifford Wallace, senior judge and chief judge emeritus of the United States Court of Appeals, received an honorary doctorate when this BYU commencement address was given on April 24, 2025. You can access the talk here.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Part 1:We talk with Joe Jaworski, who is a third-generation Texas trial attorney and former Mayor of Galveston, Texas. He has served as a law clerk to the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, and he has spent years in private practice as a trial attorney, mediator, and legal commentator.We discuss the state of Texas' prisons. There have been many heat deaths (41 in 2024). The Texas legislature has decided that there should be air conditioning in prisons by 2032. Effect, people who go to prison in Texas risk death, even for non-capital crimes.Texas is planning to study the deleterious effects of immigration in Texas, without looking at the benefits.The governor had decided to create a Texas version of DOGE. It should be pointed out that the Republicans have dominated Texas for the past 30 years. All blame for 'waste' should therefore rest on them. There will be at least 18 full time staff members on the Texas DOGE.Ted Cruz has debuted on Texas air waves as a talk show host, as a sitting Senator.Part 2:We talk with Robert Hockett who is an American lawyer,law professor, and policy advocate he teaches legal, financial and some philosophical subjects at Cornell University in New York, where I am the Edward Cornell Professor of Law and a Professor of Public Policy. He is also Senior Counsel at Westwood Capital, a socially responsible investment bank in midtown Manhattan, and a Fellow of The Century Foundation, a think tank near Battery Park in lower Manhattan. Robert's principal research, writing, and practical concerns are with the legal and institutional prerequisites to a just, prosperous, and sustainable economic order, and with Bill Curry who was a Connecticut state senator, comptroller and two time Democratic nominee for governor who served as Counselor to the President in the Clinton White House. He has written for Salon, the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post and the Hartford Courant and has provided commentary on National Public Radio, MSNBC and many other news outlets.We discuss how Trump is accelerating the decline of the US. We are watching the end of the open society. Music: David RovicsWNHNFM.ORG   PRODUCTION

Prosecution laches is an infrequently used equitable doctrine that bars enforcement of a patent when the patentee has unreasonably delayed prosecution in a way that prejudices others. It is most commonly used by accused infringers as a defense in patent litigation, although the USPTO can also use it as a basis for refusing allowance. Regardless, it is most often used against the backdrop of multiple continuation applications.Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution. In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.Featuring:Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCPaul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitGene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies--To register, click the link above.

On March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. Catholic Charities appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in December 2024.Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior?Featuring: Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

“Operating in the world of what really is possible. What do I really think I can achieve? But then, once he had set his mind on it, yes, this is something doable. This is something I firmly believe I can do, then obviously, unexpected obstacles always arise. But he refused to be defeated by one.” Talmage Boston Top Five Tips For World Leaders1. Integrity/credibility 2. Consensus building to effectuate successful diplomacy3. Principled pragmatism/recognition of necessity for compromise to make a deal 4. Magnanimity needed for the long haul – stay above the fray by not taking antagonistic bait 5. Make promises carefully  TIME STAMP SUMMARY01:06 Operating with integrity and truth is a core principle all leaders should have07:05 The current turmoil in the world leaders13:20  Often compromising is important21:40  Keep your promises but be careful when making them Where to find Talmage?Website                         www.talmageboston.com. LinkedIn                        https://www.linkedin.com/in/talmageboston/ Talmage Boston Bio Talmage Boston is a recognized figure among leading historians, with endorsements from David McCullough, Jon Meacham, and others. His diverse background as a lawyer and historian uniquely qualifies him to explore the intersection of history, leadership, and contemporary relevance. Talmage Boston has practiced law as a commercial trial and appellate litigator in Dallas, Texas since 1978. He is now a partner at Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP. He has been board certified in civil trial law since 1988, as well as board certified in civil appellate law since 1990, by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Talmage has been recognized in Texas Monthly as a “Texas Super Lawyer” in Business Litigation since inception in 2003. Talmage has successfully represented clients in state and federal court lawsuits and arbitrations involving oil and gas, real estate, banking, intellectual property and partnership disputes. During his 40-year career, he has successfully tried jury trials throughout Texas and prevailed in appellate courts across the state, including the Texas Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.A leader of both the State Bar of Texas and the Dallas Bar Association, Talmage has served as a State Bar of Texas director, as well as chair of the State Bar Litigation Section, Council of Chairs, and Annual Meeting planning committee. He has also served as the Dallas Bar Association advisory director and chair of the Dallas Bar's Business Litigation Section. For his service, he received Presidential Citations from State Bar of Texas presidents every year from 2005 to 2011 and 2018, and also from the Dallas Bar Association president in 2009.In addition to maintaining his full-time law practice, Talmage is the author of four books: (1) Cross-Examining History: A Lawyer Gets Answers From the Experts About Our Presidents (Bright Sky Press 2016, Foreword by Ken Burns); (2) Raising the Bar: The Crucial Role of the Lawyer in Society (TexasBarBooks 2012, Foreword by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh); (3) Baseball and the Baby Boomer (Bright Sky Press 2009, Foreword by Frank Deford); (4) 1939: Baseball's Tipping Point (Bright Sky Press 2005, Foreword by John Grisham).

Judge Rosemary Pooler was passionate about helping people, especially those we call the underdogs. Initially, she planned to make this happen through elected office. But then a friend suggested she consider running for judge because her name was now well known to many since she had run for other types of elected office. From there, her judicial career started, and she was appointed and elected to different positions in the state and federal judicial systems. Listen to her story and her role as a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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

We're a bit late this week, because following our recent conversation with Justice Breyer, we had the opportunity to speak at length with Judge William Pryor, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, former Alabama Attorney General, and an important member of the Judicial Conference the “national policymaking body for the federal courts.” Judge Pryor has had a colorful career, having effectively prosecuted another judge for misconduct, had a contentious confirmation hearing, clerked for a titan among judges in Judge Wisdom, and served at the highest level short of the Supreme Court for many years.  We discuss a wide range of matters from judicial safety, to the importance of following Court orders, to enforcing civil rights laws, and much more.  The discussion took place in two parts;  with an audience of undergraduates, and then with an audience of Yale Law School students, many from the Federalist Society chapter at Yale; this produced a great variety of topics. We also have timely information on a new EverScholar program where registration is about to open; be among the first to know about this!  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Today on Lawfare No Bull: On March 24, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on whether to stay a temporary restraining order issued on March 15—which bars summary removals of alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang—under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The panel, composed of Judge Patricia Millet, Judge Justin Miller, and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, asked attorneys about the lack of notice and process given to migrants, why the migrants couldn't have just filed habeas petitions, and why the lawyers filed in D.C. rather than Texas.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring:Prof. Sam Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Public Law, New York University School of LawProf. Chimène Keitner, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California Davis School of LawModerator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

We are joined by returning guest Ken W. Good, a noted bail attorney and a board member of the Professional Bondsmen of Texas to discuss the resurgence of “tough on crime” policies under President Trump's administration and the ongoing public backlash against progressive criminal justice reform.About Ken W. Good - Board of Directors, Professional Bondsmen of Texas:Ken W. Good graduated from Hardin Simmons University in 1982 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree.  He received a Master of Education Degree in 1986 from Tarleton State University, a part of the Texas A&M System.  In 1989, he received his law degree from Texas Tech School of Law, where he was a member of the Texas Tech Law Review.  Mr. Good has argued cases before the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, along with numerous courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  He is the author of "Good's on Bail," a practice guide created for bail industry professionals.  In addition, he has written numerous articles on the subject of bail reform, including, “What Successful Bail Reform Looks Like.”  Mr. Good is married and has two daughters.Text us comments or questions we can answer on the showPatriot Cigar Company Premium Cigars from Nicaragua, use our Promo Code: DOOMED for 15% off your purchase. https://www.mypatriotcigars.com/usa/DOOMED Support our show by subscribing using the link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/796727/support Support the showGo to Linktree.com/TwoDoomedMen for all our socials where we continue the conversation in between episodes.

About this episode: Today, in another episode in a series of podcasts exploring vaccine basics from the molecular level to global policy and everything in between: how compensation for most vaccine-related injuries works in the U.S. Serious vaccine injuries are rare, but when they do happen, people can bring their claims to a special court. In today's episode, Judge Gary Golkiewicz, a “special master” of the United States Court of Federal Claims, talks about how the program works, how often it's utilized, and what's needed to help the program improve. Guest: Gary Golkiewicz is a litigator and the former Chief Special Master for the United States Court of Federal Claims. Host: Dr. Josh Sharfstein is vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a faculty member in health policy, a pediatrician, and former secretary of Maryland's Health Department. Show links and related content: Vaccines 101: The Basics of Vaccines and Vaccination—Public Health On Call (January, 2025) Vaccines 101: Vaccine Safety Science—Public Health On Call (January, 2025) The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—Health Resources & Services Administration Vaccine Injury Table (pdf)—Health Resources & Services Administration Vaccine Claims/Office of Special Masters—United States Court of Federal Claims Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed

On our episode about fairness — "Fairness with Vella Lovell and Meredith Holzman" — three kids (Bodhi, Aubrey, and Will) helped two arguing Qook-a-lackas through a process of “qook-a-lation.” They listened to both sides of the argument, asked some questions, and then shared some ideas to help the Qook-a-lackas find a fair solution.Today, Little Kids, Big Hearts is thrilled to share an interview diving into fairness with someone who knows A LOT about qook-a-lation: Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, who has served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 2022.Our host, Todd Loyd chats with Judge Sanchez about what fairness is and moments in his life when he's learned about fairness. He shares tips for little kids with big hearts who want to follow in his footsteps and become real-life judges — and also tips on how we can bring more fairness to our classrooms and playgrounds today. Judge Sanchez was nominated by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2022 — an exciting first for our podcast! He's based in San Francisco, but hears cases across California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Judge Sanchez has had a remarkable career advocating for criminal justice reform, public safety, and civil rights, while also serving as a pro bono supporter of farm workers' rights. 

Glyphosate is an herbicide that’s widely used in agriculture in the U.S. and around the world. It’s the active ingredient in Roundup, which is commonly applied to crops like soy, cotton and corn that have been genetically modified to withstand the weed killer. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” although a ruling in 2022 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has prompted the agency to review the chemical’s risks to human health and the environment.  A new study by economists at the University of Oregon examined how glyphosate may also be impacting the health of infants. It looked at millions of birth records from 1990 to 2013 to see if there were differences in birth weight and gestational length after Roundup use intensified in rural counties that grew genetically modified corn, soy and cotton compared to rural counties that weren’t suitable for growing those GM crops. It found that exposure to glyphosate was associated with lower birth weights and shorter gestations, with those effects being greater for some babies more than others. Joining us to talk about the findings is Ed Rubin, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Oregon.

Judge David S. Tatel shares his RP journey throughout a lifetime of accomplishments.  He served nearly 30 years on America's second highest court, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where many of our most crucial cases are resolved—or teed up for the Supreme Court.  His story of fighting for justice over many decades, with and without eyesight, is an inspiration to us all - and the book he wrote about it is a fantastic read:https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Blindness-David-S-Tatel/dp/0316542024Record an Audio Message for us:  https://www.speakpipe.com/StoriesofVisionLossBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/stories-of-vision-loss--5626029/support.

In this chilling episode of Almost Fiction, we explore the violent crime spree of Mitchell Sims and Ruby Padgett, a couple whose anger and desperation led to a series of horrifying murders. From the Domino's Pizza murders in South Carolina to the shocking double homicide in California, their story reveals how personal grievances and greed spiraled into a nationwide killing spree.Join us as we dissect the motives behind their actions, the details of their crimes, and the legacy of fear they left behind. Was this a case of workplace rage taken too far, or something even darker?Sources:No. S004783. Jun 28, 1993. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MITCHELL CARLTON SIMS, Defendant and Appellant. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. A 591707, Jack B. Tso, Judge.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 425 F.3d 560. Mitchell Carlton Sims, Petitioner-appellant, v. Jill Brown, Warden,* Respondent-appellee. 2 Sought in Deaths of Pizza Workers Arrested in Vegas. By David Freed - Los Angeles Times. December 26, 1985.‘Lessons learned as the son of a serial killer'. By The Baptist Courier. Published on October 1, 2008. Snapped: Killer Couples. Season 7 Episode 3: Ruby Padgette and Mitchell Sims. Aired June 23, 2012.Access ad-free episodes, bonus content, and get all of the 11:59 Media Podcast library!Access hours of extra content each week, exclusive merch, and early access to new podcasts.Visit https://1159plus.com or https://www.patreon.com/1159media 

Texas can be proud to say that it was the first state to have an all-woman high court in the United States, but how exactly did this moment in history come about? Rocky Dhir welcomes Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Sharon Sandle to learn about this period in Texas history and the surprising series of events that led to the appointment of female judges. They go into detail about the challenges faced by these legal trailblazers—Nellie Robertson of Granbury, Edith Wilmans of Dallas, and Hortense Sparks Ward of Houston—and also discuss notable women's issues of the era and highlight several other female legal pioneers.   Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod is Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with Chambers in Houston, Texas.   Sharon Sandle is Executive Director of the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society and Director of the Law Practice Resources Division at the State Bar of Texas.

Texas can be proud to say that it was the first state to have an all-woman high court in the United States, but how exactly did this moment in history come about? Rocky Dhir welcomes Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Sharon Sandle to learn about this period in Texas history and the surprising series of events that led to the appointment of female judges. They go into detail about the challenges faced by these legal trailblazers—Nellie Robertson of Granbury, Edith Wilmans of Dallas, and Hortense Sparks Ward of Houston—and also discuss notable women's issues of the era and highlight several other female legal pioneers.   Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod is Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with Chambers in Houston, Texas.   Sharon Sandle is Executive Director of the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society and Director of the Law Practice Resources Division at the State Bar of Texas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us as the Honorable Andre M. Davis, a retired judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, shares insights from his extensive legal career. Judge Davis discusses his early influences as a law clerk in the courts where he eventually served, his professional journey through the state and federal benches, and what motivates him today.

As Elon Musk continues to plot, with Trumpian glee, against the American Federal government, it is important to remind ourselves of the essential value of this state bureaucracy. As the founding president and CEO of the Washington DC based Partnership for Public Service, Max Stier has spent the last quarter century focused on making American government more efficient and accountable. And Stier's warning about the incoming administration is critically important. Yes, he acknowledges, some of Musk's misgivings about the inefficiencies of the Federal bureaucracy are fair, but that isn't an excuse for a descent into what Stier describes as the patrimonial politics of MAGA in which the interests of Trump and of the American state are treated identically. The American Republic was founded against the 18th century absolutist conceit that L'État, c'est moi. So all Max Stier is doing, at the Partnership for Public Service, is defending the values of the Founders who, wanted to protect the Republic from a patrimonial state.Max Stier is the founding president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Under his leadership, the Partnership has been widely praised as a first-class nonprofit organization and thought leader on federal government management issues. Max has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government. In 1982, he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim Leach. Max clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 and clerked for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in 1994. Between these two positions, Max served as Special Litigation Counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman at the Department of Justice. In 1995, Max joined the law firm of Williams & Connolly where he practiced primarily in the area of white collar defense. Max comes most recently from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, having served as the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School, Max is a member of the Inaugural Advisory Council of the National Institute of Social Sciences, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States and the National Advisory Board for Public Service at Harvard College.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Jeremy Robbins is the Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. Previously, Jeremy spent more than a decade building New American Economy, the think tank and advocacy organization founded by Michael Bloomberg to make the economic case for smarter immigration policies, as NAE's first and sole Executive Director. Prior to that, Jeremy served as a policy advisor and special counsel in the Office of New York City Mayor, a judicial law clerk on the United States Court of Appeals, a Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Fellow working on prisoners' rights issues in Argentina, and a litigation associate at WilmerHale in Boston, where he was part of the firm's team representing six Bosnian men detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Jeremy received a JD from Yale Law School and a BA in political science from Brown University. In this episode, you'll hear about: Challenges and reforms in U.S. immigration policy Examination of border management and immigration efficiency Impact of enforcement spending and immigration court backlogs Role of undocumented workers in the U.S. economy Advocacy for a startup visa and immigration change American Immigration Council's efforts in supporting immigrant communities Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremy-adam-robbins Website - https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/  Email - jrobbins@immcouncil.org Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Sophie Alcorn Podcast: Episode 16: E-2 Visa for Founders and Employees Episode 19: Australian Visas Including E-3 Episode 20: TN Visas and Status for Canadian and Mexican Citizens Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook Alcorn Academy course for best practices for securing the O-1A visa, EB-1A green card, or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card—the top options for startup founders. Use promotion code EAB20 for 20% off the enrollment fee.

Diddy's Defense filed a Motion to Suppress findings in his laptop and other motions. I will go more in depth this Wednesday on The Emily Show.Haliey Welch AKA Hawk Tuah Girl, was confronted by Coffeezilla for allegedly doing a Crypto Scam. The movie Wicked is sued for misprinting their website on toy packaging; directing them to an adult site. The United States Court of Appeal agreed that TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, must divest from foreign adversary countries in order to do business in the USA. The next step would be to appeal to the Supreme Court. This year's Spotify Wrapped is causing uproar over its results.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

In recent years, the legal profession has increasingly prioritized diversity in law firm hiring and litigation leadership, driven by demands from corporate clients, alumni, and judges. Efforts to increase the representation of women and non-white lawyers have become so integral that they are now reflected in proposed formal rules, such as the FRCP 16.1, which would require judges to consider identity characteristics when selecting leadership teams for multidistrict litigation (MDL). This potential codification raises important questions about the legality and implications of identity-based preferences in the legal profession. How should client preferences for diversity be balanced with Title VII commitments, and what role should diversity of background play in law firm hiring and the selection of MDL legal teams? This panel will explore these issues, examining both the legal and policy arguments surrounding identity-based preferencing in legal employment.Featuring:Dean andré douglas pond cummings, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolProf. Darrell D. Jackson, Winston Howard Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of LawMr. Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy & The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage FoundationMs. Tobi Young, Senior Vice President Legal & Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Cognizant; Board of Directors, HalliburtonModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

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

Theories of nuisance, market-share, and consumer protection liability have become increasingly popular among plaintiffs who cannot trace an alleged harm to any specific defendant. Recently, states and local governments have sought to impose market-share liability on companies based on allegedly misleading statements (or silence) about the potential effects of their products. These cases raise difficult legal issues that remain underdeveloped because the risk of a crippling damages award often pressures companies to settle claims early in litigation.Featuring:Mr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLPMr. Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Much has been made of the promise and concerns around AI technical advances, and guardrails that might be considered to reduce the downside of opaque quasi-algorithmic outcomes associated with current large language model approaches. This panel will examine the current AI regulatory debate and explore how current and proposed corporate and governmental AI is being shaped and normed to provide outputs that reinforce “mainstream” economic, ideological and operational norms, with the risk of vested interests defining such norms. From national security applications, autonomous vehicle safety decisions, economic predictions, pareto-optimal and social benefit determinations, and health care deployment, to how you are entertained and educated, can we control what most of us can’t understand?Featuring:Mr. Stewart A. Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLPMr. Christopher Ekren, Global Technology Counsel, Sony Corporation of AmericaMs. Victoria Luxardo Jeffries, Director, United States Public Policy, MetaProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover InstitutionModerator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.Featuring:Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under LawDean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

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

Critics have raised concerns about the inadequacy of the consumer welfare standard for the 21st century, while others defend the standard as a proven and manageable test. Has the focus on consumer welfare led to under-enforcement? Is there an objective and administrable alternative to replace it? This panel will discuss which approach to antitrust is best and ways forward to increase U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.Featuring:Mr. Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary Mr. Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary CommitteeMr. Michael Kades, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice Mr. Christopher Mufarrige, Chief of Staff and Attorney Advisor, FTC Commissioner Melissa HolyoakMr. Alex Okuliar, Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster’s Global Antitrust Law Practice Group, Morrison FoersterModerator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Accomplishing anything of significance in this political environment requires courage. The legal industry has a few well-trodden pathways: law school, clerkship, large law firm, and perhaps a brief stint in government. Yet without courage, there is little potential for lasting impact along these pathways. While prior administrations may have emphasized conventional career paths and credentials in their selection process, there is an emerging interest in selecting for courage, independent thought, and sound judgment.But what paths best equip future leaders to accomplish great things in public service? Does the pressure to keep the option to return to a large law firm hinder one from accomplishing great things? What should we be doing to support people who demonstrate courage - including those who make the courageous choice to balance their careers with responsibilities to family and children?Featuring:Ms. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLPHon. Jonathan Mitchell, Principal, Mitchell Law PLLCHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeMs. Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & AssociatesMODERATOR: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Most would agree that all of these [tribalism, polarization, racism, religious enmity, and antisemitism] are bad for society. They are perhaps a particular threat in a democracy like ours, which is predicated on the idea that people of very different backgrounds and ideas can coexist peacefully. Following decades of improvement in all these areas, they seem to be resurgent in the United States. What role have the law, the courts, and the culture played in contributing to this state of affairs? How can law best be deployed to combat it and what is the role of civil society vs. law?Featuring:Mr. Jay Edelson, Founder & CEO, Edelson PCProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolProf. David M. Schizer, Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics and Dean Emeritus, Columbia Law SchoolMr. Matt Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic LibertieModerator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Recent times have seen growing criticism of the Supreme Court's legitimacy, with some claiming that the Supreme Court has amassed too much governmental and political power. Such critics have proposed judicial reform to even out this perceived imbalance, suggesting changes like term limits for justices and a binding code of ethics. Opponents say, however, that these changes could undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and upset the delicate system of checks and balances between the branches of government put in place by our Constitution. These debates have led to increased polarization within the legal profession. What is the real purpose and importance of preserving an independent judiciary? How can one engage with the Court's decisions without undermining its authority? Can we champion the integrity of the Court while fostering respectful and constructive dialogue within the legal community?Featuring:Prof. Daniel Epps, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. LouisHon. Edith H. Jones, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPProf. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

State and federal laws in a wide variety of settings tend to support gender transition in children. This has given rise to religious liberty and parental rights lawsuits. Conflicts include parental objections to gender ideology in public school curricula, secret gender transitions in public schools, state conversion therapy bans, denials of parental custody, foster care, and adoption, and gender transition treatment in the healthcare context. This panel will explore the intersection of the transgender legal movement, religious freedom, and parental rights.Featuring:Prof. Ira Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor Emeritus of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Jason Miyares, Attorney General, VirginiaProf. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute, University of Notre DameProf. Steve Sanders, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of LawModerator: Hon. Kyle Duncan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

It has been almost ten years since the advent of the ‘progressive prosecutor,’ local elected district attorneys and attorneys general throughout the country who ran on and then implemented a revolutionary new model of public prosecution. If states are the “laboratories of democracy” then there plainly has been a series of bold experiments testing the efficacy of this new model of law enforcement. Was it a success, or a failure? Has public safety and order been promoted, or jeopardized? Or is it all simply too soon to tell? Please join us as we present a panel of distinguished current and former elected officials, academics, and other experts in the field as they discuss all facets of these important questions of law, order, and the public interest.Featuring:Hon. John Creuzot, District Attorney, DallasProf. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationHon. Ray Tierney, District Attorney, Suffolk County, New YorkModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

In 2022, the ABA updated its Standard 303, Curriculum which relates to “cross-cultural competency” and “professional identity.” Because the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is responsible for law school accreditation through an appointment from the U.S. Department of Education (and the agreement of State Bars), this change and the ways it can be implemented could have widespread implications.This panel will discuss the nature of the obligations the revised Standard places on law schools and the scope of such terms as "cross-cultural competency" and "racism." Do these new standards require new courses or course changes? Will the new courses displace any of the old ones? Will the implementation turn out to be education or training? Does this standard create any tension with later developments in law including Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC (2023)? What role does the Department of Education and State Bars have in scrutinizing and altering the effects of this new standard?Featuring:Dean Michael F. Barry, Professor of Law and Former President and Dean, South Texas College of Law HoustonDr. Dayna Bowen Matthew, Dean & Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolMs. Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, ABAHon. Nels Peterson, Justice, Supreme Court of GeorgiaModerator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?Featuring:Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova UniversityHon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionHon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

The importance of judicial selection and confirmation is now a point of emphasis for all presidential administrations. In 2025 and going forward, what principles and considerations will govern judicial selection (and confirmation) in a new administration, with a new Senate majority. These and other important Article III issues will be considered by our panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel, Office of the Republican Minority LeaderMr. David Lat, Founder, Above the LawProf. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawModerator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

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

The future of the national bank system is increasingly uncertain as federal regulators have incorporated DEI and ESG into bank supervision, creating tensions with some states. Several states have responded by attempting to ban such practices, potentially creating conflicting legal duties for banks. Meanwhile, other states are challenging interest rate exportation and other aspects of state preemption, which arguably undermines the value of national charters and hampers the ability of banks and fintechs to scale nationwide. The Supreme Court's recent overruling of the Chevron doctrine adds another layer of uncertainty as federal regulators will receive reduced deference. Do these conflicts signal the end of national bank charters, and are we headed toward a red-state/blue-state banking system? This panel will explore these questions.Featuring:Mr. John Court, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & COO, Bank Policy InstituteMr. Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers’ ResearchProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Over the past four years, state attorneys general have brought many significant lawsuits against the Biden administration. From border enforcement and student loan forgiveness, to Title IX rules and environmental regulations, states have brought the executive branch into court over divisive legal questions. Some of these suits remain active. This panel of experts will recap the most notable cases of the past presidential term and discuss what the recent election could mean for the future.Featuring:Mr. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, OhioMr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson GrimsleyHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The generation of political leaders that produced the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Era no doubt saw themselves as working to make one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc. matter less to one’s future prospects. And in many ways, they clearly succeeded. They would almost certainly be surprised and disappointed to learn how much emphasis those factors are still getting. Why has this happened? Is the problem that our focus on issues of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, gender, etc. has gone too far? Or is the problem that we haven’t yet focused on them enough? To what extent has the law helped create the current state of affairs? How can the law help us move in a better direction?Featuring: Mr. Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Tyler Austin Harper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Bates CollegeHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawMs. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Contributing Editor, City JournalModerator: Hon. Paul Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring:Ms. Rebecca Dormon, Labor Consultant, People ResultsMr. Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham LLPMr. Bradford J. Kelley, Shareholder, LittlerModerator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard was the most important decision on affirmative action in generations, banning preferential treatment based on race in higher education admissions. How are colleges and universities complying with SFFA? What else will be necessary in order to ensure compliance? What does the next generation of cases look like? Outside of higher education, what will be the effect of SFFA? Does it apply to employment and contracting? Does it apply to gender as well as race? What does it say about disparate impact?Featuring:Prof. Peter Arcidiacono, William Henry Glasson Professor of Economics, Duke UniversityProf. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law; Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, George Mason University Prof. Kyle Rozema, Professor of Law, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program and Academic Placement, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Sonja Starr, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law & Criminology, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit