POPULARITY
Hosted by wiley rein llp
18 episodes with wiley rein llp
7 episodes with wiley rein llp
2 episodes with wiley rein llp
Just days into his latest run as president, Donald Trump fired 17 inspectors general acoss the federal government. The move not only set off alarms in the government oversight and accountability community, but it also set an early precedent for how the Trump administration would deal with any entities he saw as threatening to his agenda as president. Diana Shaw has spent much of her career in the shoes of federal inspectors general, having served as acting IG of the State Department and a variety of roles in DHS's Office of the IG, before retiring from government in 2024. So she knows as good as anyone, through her continued connections and deep experience, how IGs in the Trump administration are navigating the current dynamic, what's at play as they maneuver around the work of the DOGE and how things wil continue to unfold. Now a partner at DC law firm Wiley Rein LLP, Shaw joins the Daily Scoop to discuss all that as well as her thoughts on one of the biggest IG cases: the Pentagon's probe into the secretary of defense's use of commercial messaging applications like Signal to conduct official business. The Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency team is examining the Navy's software enterprise, the service's chief information officer said Tuesday. The review comes as the administration is undertaking a broad look at the Defense Department's and other federal agencies' contracts and workforce in search of what it considers wasteful spending and opportunities for savings. After accessing data at the Department of Homeland Security, including systems operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency now appears to be behind a new effort to shrink the agency's staff. On Monday, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem sent a message to employees encouraging them to leave the agency, according to an email viewed by FedScoop. The message explained details of deferred resignation, voluntary early retirement, and voluntary separation incentive payment programs. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.
Brendan Carr's career in telecommunications policy spans over a decade. He began his legal career as a clerk for Judge Dennis W. Shedd of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Later, he worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein LLP, focusing on appellate, litigation, and telecom practices. In 2012, Carr joined the FCC as a staffer, working on spectrum policy and competition matters. He then served as the lead advisor to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on wireless, public safety, and international issues. Carr was later appointed as the FCC's General Counsel, representing the agency in court and serving as its chief legal advisor. In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Carr to serve as an FCC Commissioner, and he was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate on August 3, 2017. He was sworn into office on August 11, 2017. In January 2025, Carr was elevated to the position of FCC Chairman by President Trump during his second term.
In this latest installment of our special series on the U.S. presidential transition period, I'm sitting down with Nazak Nikakhtar, former assistant secretary of commerce for industry and analysis under the first Trump administration. She's an expert on trade and national security and a partner at Wiley Rein LLP. In this episode, we dive into the debate surrounding the use of tariffs. How have China's unfair trade practices destroyed American manufacturing? Will tariffs work? Or will they make things worse for the average American? And what other tools will Trump have at his disposal that can restore and protect U.S. industry?Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Global trade tensions are heating up, as China announces new tariffs on imports of European brandy. The move follows the EU decision to raise tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles, following similar moves by the US and Canada. Greta Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP and former General Counsel for the US Trade Representative, explains why French cognac producers are set to bear the brunt of the latest tariffs, and what's next for US-China trade relations.
In his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed to operate, how it has met the challenges of decades past, and the trends that have contributed to increased polarization and decreased power. Having established how we got where we are, Dr. Wallach articulates three potential paths forward for Congress: continued dysfunction, increased power for the Executive branch, or a revival of the forms that ensured it will function as designed in the past. Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!Featuring:Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of LawProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolDr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
In his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed to operate, how it has met the challenges of decades past, and the trends that have contributed to increased polarization and decreased power. Having established how we got where we are, Dr. Wallach articulates three potential paths forward for Congress: continued dysfunction, increased power for the Executive branch, or a revival of the forms that ensured it will function as designed in the past. Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!Featuring:Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of LawProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolDr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Amaru Sanchez, an associate at law firm Wiley Rein LLP, discusses California's Proposition 12, which went into full effect in January.
Technical Director of the Global Food Traceability Center with IFT Blake Harris and former American Bar Association Representative at the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology and Of Counsel at Wiley Rein LLP Keith Matthews answer the question, "What is the current state of traceability in the food industry, and where is it headed?"
In the fall 2023 term, the Court is currently set to consider a case of whether a civil rights "tester," someone who collects information as to whether a place of public accommodation is in compliance with laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) without an intent actually to visit those places or use those services, has standing to sue such businesses. At issue is whether "tester" Deborah Laufer, had standing to bring suit against Acheson Hotels. Laufer alleged that the website for a hotel operated by Acheson Hotels had insufficient information to comply with the ADA and accommodate those with disabilities. Acheson Hotels argued that since Ms. Laufer had no intention of visiting the hotel in question, she, therefore, had no standing to sue. Ms. Laufer lost in district court, which threw out her suit for lack of standing, but the First Circuit reinstated her lawsuit, ruling she did have standing. That prompted an appeal by Acheson Hotels to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.Interestingly, after certiorari was granted, Ms. Laufer dropped her case in district court after an attorney who has represented her in other cases was disciplined by a federal Court located in Maryland. Ms. Laufer's lawyers thus also asked SCOTUS to dismiss the Acheson Hotels case for mootness, given that the district case is no longer live. Oral argument in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer is still set for October 4, 2023. In this recorded webinar Karen Harned, who filed an amicus brief in the case, provided a preview of the case and the issues worth tracking in this conversation. Featuring:--Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC--(Moderator) Joel Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Last year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Court reinvigorated the "Major Questions Doctrine" of administrative law. Given the Federal Trade Commission's efforts to expand its rulemaking powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act and the likely return of the "net neutrality" fight at the Federal Communications Commission once a third Democratic commissioner is confirmed, this webinar explored how the reinvigorated "Major Questions Doctrine" may impact tech and telecom policy.Featuring:- Ian Heath Gershengorn, Partner and Chair, Appellate & Supreme Court Practice, Jenner & Block LLP; Former Acting Solicitor General- Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Wiley Rein LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission- Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Partner and Chair, Antitrust & Competition Practice, Baker Botts LLP; Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission- Christopher J. Wright, Partner and Co-Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission- Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
Social media platforms have emerged as the new "town square" and a key forum for public debate, but some have questioned whether that debate is as open and robust as it should be. On the other hand, some worry that efforts to regulate social media platforms may themselves crimp debate. At the heart of the discussion is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A panel of experts discussed what Section 230 permits and doesn't permit—a question now before a number of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google.Featuring:- Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Fellow, Free Speech & Peace, Stand Together- Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation- Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute- Moderator: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Happy Thanksgiving! Today, Scott Felder, a retired Army judge advocate and partner with Wiley Rein LLP in Great Falls, VA, talks about what may be the oldest digital judge advocate network, known as the Military Legal Professionals Network or MLPN. Scott took over administration of the network this year and was gracious enough to talk to me about how what it is, how it came about, and how judge advocates can join. Scott also talked about his own career progression as well as the efforts by him and his firm to help judge advocates leaving the service. Scott's LinkedIn profile can be accessed HERE. Programming note: Looking for additional guests. If interested, please e-mail me at afterthejagc@gmail.com.
While David is still away on his well-earned vacation, it's time for some career advice! Megan L. Brown – partner at Wiley Rein LLP – joins Sarah to talk about choosing (and getting hired by) the right law firm. How to get your best self across in interviews? How to judge a firm's work culture? Is it wise to inquire about a firm's work-life balance? And, most importantly, should you take career pointers from Netflix's Partner Track? All shall be answered.Oh, and by the way, the views expressed in this episode are Megan's and Sarah's, they do not represent necessarily the views of Wiley Rein, its partners or clients.Editor's Note: Views expressed are not necessarily the views of Wiley Rein, its partners or clients
Bob Hibbert, senior counsel with the Washington, D.C. law firm Wiley Rein LLP, is a regulatory and legal expert on the meat and alternative meat markets. He updates MeatingPod listeners on the state of alt-meat labeling, the possible timeline for federal approval to sell cultivated meat for human consumption, and how state laws, like California's Prop 12, could have an effect on the meat substitute markets across the country.
With the upcoming June 30th STIR/SHAKEN Deadline right around the corner, we set up a heavy-hitting episode of Tuesday Talks featuring guest speaker, Kevin Rupy of Wiley Rein LLP, who joined Rebekah Johnson in a conversation on the FCC's filing requirements and deadline of the Robocall Mitigation Database. Make sure you've got the facts before the deadline arrives. Mentioned ContentRobocall Mitigation Database (RMD) & PlansThe FCC and The TRACED ActSTIR/SHAKEN Authentication Framework & ImplementationJune 30th, 2021 DeadlineAttestation Levels A, B, CService Providers & Call OriginationAbout Kevin RupyKevin Rupy is a nationally recognized authority on key issues affecting the telecom industry, particularly those relating to legal and illegal robocalls. Prior to his arrival at the firm, Kevin was Vice President of Law & Policy at USTelecom where he represented Fortune 500 companies in the wireline broadband marketplace. In that role, he frequently served as a liaison between association members and government agencies, and Congress. During his tenure at USTelecom, Kevin established and led the Industry Traceback Group, which is now the FCC's officially designated Traceback Consortium. He advises robocall analytics providers, voice service providers, and enterprise callers on FCC regulations and proceedings resulting from the passage of the TRACED Act.
Guidance from the Biden administration released recently announced that covered federal contractors and subcontractors must be vaccinated against COVID-19 and show proof of it by December 8, unless they are granted an exemption. As that date approaches, firms will have to navigate the ins and outs of the mandate. Eric Leonard is a partner with Wiley Rein LLP and Martha Vázquez is an associate at Wiley Rein, a firm specializing in regulatory, litigation, and transactional matters. Vázquez is also the co-author of a post on our site headlined “Potential Traps for Federal Contractors with the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.” They joined the podcast to discuss how contractors will have to prepare for the new rules.
On June 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled a shareholder-plaintiff had standing to sue California's Secretary of State. Creighton Meland, a shareholder at OSI Systems, Inc., sued alleging that Senate Bill 826, which was signed into law in 2018, violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it requires corporations to elect a sliding scale quota of women to corporate board member seats. The District Court ruled Meland had no standing because SB 826 governed corporations, not shareholders, and at the time of Meland's suit OSI was in compliance so any controversy was moot.The Ninth Circuit disagreed, allowing Meland's suit to go forward by finding that the practical effect of SB 826 was to govern shareholders and direct them to vote on the basis of gender to avoid the imposition of fines or penalties for noncompliance. The court further held that Meland's suit alleged a direct harm and did not rely on prudential standing since he alleged personal harm rather than injury to the corporate entity.Here to discuss the merits of the underlying law and the likely next steps in the current litigation are Professor Ann Ravel of Berkeley Law, a former Commissioner and Chair at the Federal Election Commission, who helped negotiate a $310 million settlement against Google resulting in the creation of a corporate-level diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative, and Anastasia P. Boden, an attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation's Economic Liberty Project and lead counsel in the Meland v. Weber litigation. Our speakers are joined by moderator Megan Brown, a Partner at Wiley Rein LLP. Featuring:- Anastasia P. Boden, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- Ann Ravel, Lecturer, Berkeley Law and Former Commissioner and Chair, Federal Election Commission- [Moderator] Megan Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
In Today's "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to discuss China, 5G, Huawei, ZTE, Apple, Facebook, Google, and the forthcoming political realignment when it comes to section 230 reform and breaking up Big Tech. Plus, why it's bad for ZTE equipment to operate 5G towers next to our nuke silos in Montana.Commissioner Brendan Carr is the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, and he served previously as the agency's General Counsel.Described by Axios as “the FCC's 5G crusader,” Carr has led the FCC's work to modernize its infrastructure rules and accelerate the buildout of high-speed networks. His reforms cut billions of dollars in red tape, enabled the private sector to construct high-speed networks in communities across the country, and extended America's global leadership in 5G.Commissioner Carr leads a groundbreaking telehealth initiative at the FCC. The Connected Care Pilot Program supports the delivery of high-quality care to low-income Americans and veterans over their smartphones, tablets, or other connected devices. The Program is helping to drive down health care costs while improving patient outcomes.Commissioner Carr brings over a dozen years of private and public sector experience in communications and tech policy to his position. Before joining the agency as a staffer back in 2012, he worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein LLP in the firm's appellate, litigation, and telecom practices. He litigated cases involving the First Amendment and the Communications Act. Previously, Commissioner Carr clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for Judge Dennis Shedd. And after attending Georgetown University for his undergrad, Commissioner Carr earned his J.D. magna cum laude from the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law where he served as an editor of the Catholic University Law Review.Learn more about Brendan Carr's work at the FCC here: https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/brendan-carr––––––Follow American Moment on 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-695775BitChute – https://www.bitchute.com/channel/Xr42d9swu7O9/Check 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 and edited by Jared Cummings. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.
On April 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Facebook Inc. v. Duguid. The issue was whether the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotamayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “To qualify as an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a device must have the capacity either to store, or to produce, a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.” This decision narrows the federal robocoll ban. Scott D. Delacourt, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP and Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law at Boston College School of Law, joins us today for a conversation moderated by Danielle Thumann, Attorney Advisor for FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.
On December 8, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid. The issue presented was whether the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”Megan Brown, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP, and Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law at Boston College Law School, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
August 13 is approaching and, for many in the Defense Industrial base (and beyond) that means it's time for another regulatory complication to global trade, specifically the implementation of Section 889, which forbids the government from contracting with companies who have telecom and surveillance equipment from 5 major chinese companies in their supply chains, including Huawei and ZTE. But what, exactly does that mean? And how can businesses get ahead of this massive regulatory effort? Thankfully there are people like Megan Brown in the world. Megan is an attorney and partner at Wiley Rein LLP, and on this episode of What Lies Beneath?, our guest host, Andrea Little Limbago, talks to Megan all about: -The role of bias and how it fits into regulations and insecurity -The 2 parts of Section 889 (sections A & B) and what they have to do with the global supply chain -Why the US government is so set on not doing business with companies like Huawei -Why the lack of definitions in the statute and the lack of clarity is troublesome
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was intended to be the principal forum for setting the rules of international trade and for the resolution of international trade disputes. The United States has expressed its concern with the WTO’s dispute settlement system and the Administration has blocked new appointments to the Appellate Body such that there are now insufficient judges necessary to hear new appeals. The situation does not appear likely to be resolved soon. Please join Stephen Vaughn, the former General Counsel to the United States Trade Representative and previous acting U.S. Trade Representative, for a conversations regarding the ongoing conflict, relevant issues, and thoughts regarding the future of the US and the WTO. The discussion will be moderated by Daniel Pickard.Featuring:-- Stephen Vaughn, Partner in the International Trade Team of King & Spalding, former General Counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and acting U.S. Trade Representative. -- Moderator: Daniel Pickard, Partner in the International Trade practice and Co-Chair of the National Security practice, Wiley Rein LLP
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was intended to be the principal forum for setting the rules of international trade and for the resolution of international trade disputes. The United States has expressed its concern with the WTO’s dispute settlement system and the Administration has blocked new appointments to the Appellate Body such that there are now insufficient judges necessary to hear new appeals. The situation does not appear likely to be resolved soon. Please join Stephen Vaughn, the former General Counsel to the United States Trade Representative and previous acting U.S. Trade Representative, for a conversations regarding the ongoing conflict, relevant issues, and thoughts regarding the future of the US and the WTO. The discussion will be moderated by Daniel Pickard.Featuring:-- Stephen Vaughn, Partner in the International Trade Team of King & Spalding, former General Counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and acting U.S. Trade Representative. -- Moderator: Daniel Pickard, Partner in the International Trade practice and Co-Chair of the National Security practice, Wiley Rein LLP
On June 29, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications. To discuss the case, we have both Casey Mattox, a Senior Fellow focusing on toleration and free speech at the Charles Koch Institute, and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.
On June 29, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications. To discuss the case, we have both Casey Mattox, a Senior Fellow focusing on toleration and free speech at the Charles Koch Institute, and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.
On Monday, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications. Featuring: -- Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute-- Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
On Monday, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications. Featuring: -- Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute-- Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
The first lawsuit against the Chinese government seeking damages for personal and property injuries was filed in the Southern District of Florida by the Berman Law group. The lawsuit was later amended to add the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a defendant. Other lawsuits have followed elsewhere in the country. The panelists will discuss whether the CCP enjoys sovereign immunity and whether the acts and omissions of the Chinese government fall within one or more exceptions to sovereign immunity as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Featuring: -- Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School-- Matthew T. Moore, Attorney, Berman Law Group-- Tatiana Sainati, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
The first lawsuit against the Chinese government seeking damages for personal and property injuries was filed in the Southern District of Florida by the Berman Law group. The lawsuit was later amended to add the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a defendant. Other lawsuits have followed elsewhere in the country. The panelists will discuss whether the CCP enjoys sovereign immunity and whether the acts and omissions of the Chinese government fall within one or more exceptions to sovereign immunity as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Featuring: -- Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School-- Matthew T. Moore, Attorney, Berman Law Group-- Tatiana Sainati, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., a case which considers whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of a funding-related federal policy requirement not only against domestic organizations but also their foreign affiliates.The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 authorized the appropriation of billions of dollars to fund efforts by nongovernmental organizations to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. The Act provides, however, that none of these funds may be used by an organization “that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” 22 U.S.C. §7631(f). In its 2013 decision in Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., the Supreme Court held that this “Policy Requirement” violated the First Amendment, by compelling as a condition of federal funding the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the Government program. Respondents are domestic organizations that carry out HIV/AIDS-related aid work, including activities undertaken through legally distinct foreign affiliates. As the Supreme Court’s decision in Agency for Int’l Development did not address foreign affiliates specifically, the federal government has continued to apply the Policy Requirement to them. The affiliates object that, while they do not condone prostitution, neither can they satisfy the Policy Requirement because their HIV/AIDS work necessarily involves them with the activities of sex-worker communities abroad. The affiliates, therefore, challenged the Policy Requirement as applied to them and the district court entered a permanent injunction in their favor. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the logic of the Supreme Court’s Agency for Int’l Development decision extended to foreign affiliates and not just domestic non-governmental organizations. The federal government thereafter sought certiorari and the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of the Policy Requirement with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.To discuss the case, we have Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow of Free Speech and Toleration at the Charles Koch Institute and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., a case which considers whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of a funding-related federal policy requirement not only against domestic organizations but also their foreign affiliates.The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 authorized the appropriation of billions of dollars to fund efforts by nongovernmental organizations to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. The Act provides, however, that none of these funds may be used by an organization “that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” 22 U.S.C. §7631(f). In its 2013 decision in Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., the Supreme Court held that this “Policy Requirement” violated the First Amendment, by compelling as a condition of federal funding the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the Government program. Respondents are domestic organizations that carry out HIV/AIDS-related aid work, including activities undertaken through legally distinct foreign affiliates. As the Supreme Court’s decision in Agency for Int’l Development did not address foreign affiliates specifically, the federal government has continued to apply the Policy Requirement to them. The affiliates object that, while they do not condone prostitution, neither can they satisfy the Policy Requirement because their HIV/AIDS work necessarily involves them with the activities of sex-worker communities abroad. The affiliates, therefore, challenged the Policy Requirement as applied to them and the district court entered a permanent injunction in their favor. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the logic of the Supreme Court’s Agency for Int’l Development decision extended to foreign affiliates and not just domestic non-governmental organizations. The federal government thereafter sought certiorari and the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of the Policy Requirement with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.To discuss the case, we have Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow of Free Speech and Toleration at the Charles Koch Institute and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important First Amendment case, USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., Case No. 19-177, regarding the scope of the government’s funding power to limit private speech. This is the second time this case has been argued in the Court. Like the prior appeal, this case addresses whether the government has the power to compel speech from grant recipients who received government funds to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. This teleforum will provide an overview of the Court’s prior opinion, the First Amendment impact of this case, and several key points that the Court will likely address in its opinion.Featuring: -- Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute-- Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important First Amendment case, USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., Case No. 19-177, regarding the scope of the government’s funding power to limit private speech. This is the second time this case has been argued in the Court. Like the prior appeal, this case addresses whether the government has the power to compel speech from grant recipients who received government funds to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. This teleforum will provide an overview of the Court’s prior opinion, the First Amendment impact of this case, and several key points that the Court will likely address in its opinion.Featuring: -- Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute-- Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Fault Lines welcomes Ron Gula, NSI Advisory Board member and President of Gula Tech Adventures, and Megan Brown, NSI Senior Fellow and Partner at Wiley Rein LLP to discuss the recent Cyberspace Solarium Report. How will the Cyberspace Solarium Report impact the private sector? Why did the report punt on the encryption debate? Does any of this actually get implemented? Ron, Megan, and Fault Lines Host Les Munson answer these questions and many more on this week’s episode of Fault Lines! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This teleforum will discuss the Supreme Court argument in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., a case about the False Claims Act statute of limitations. In this case, the Court examined whether a relator can rely on the tolling provision of the statute of limitations, which allows a claim to be filed up to three years after the responsible government official learns of facts material to action, even if the government never intervenes. While the case presented two narrow issues—how long can a relator wait to file suit and who is the “responsible government official” whose knowledge of the facts can trigger the limitations period—the Court’s resolution of the case could have potentially touched on several hot-button issues and create ripples that materially change FCA jurisprudence. This Teleforum will discuss the decision and wheather the implications of the decisions are as far reaching as they could have been. Featuring: Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
This teleforum will discuss the Supreme Court argument in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., a case about the False Claims Act statute of limitations. In this case, the Court examined whether a relator can rely on the tolling provision of the statute of limitations, which allows a claim to be filed up to three years after the responsible government official learns of facts material to action, even if the government never intervenes. While the case presented two narrow issues—how long can a relator wait to file suit and who is the “responsible government official” whose knowledge of the facts can trigger the limitations period—the Court’s resolution of the case could have potentially touched on several hot-button issues and create ripples that materially change FCA jurisprudence. This Teleforum will discuss the decision and wheather the implications of the decisions are as far reaching as they could have been. Featuring: Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Richard Wiley on what's next in high def TV ~ "Ultra high definition is great. Then there's an even ... double that, coming up in Japan. Super high vision. So, it's just going to keep going. The only problem is, there's only so much that the human eye can absorb." Richard Wiley Chairman Emeritus Wiley Rein LLP and Former FCC Chairman, with Andy Ockershausen in-studio interview Andy Ockershausen: This is Our Town. This is Andy Ockershausen, and we're introducing to our podcast one of the more famous regulators in the history of broadcasting. The man was a Commissioner, he was a General Counsel, he became Chairman of the FCC. He is one of the most important people in the history of broadcasting, and we're so delighted to have Dick Wiley here in Our Town. Richard Wiley: Andy, thank you. It's a pleasure and a privilege to be with you once again! And we're still clicking, you know? Andy Ockershausen: You're clicking, I'm clicking, thank God Janice keeps me clicking. But Dick, you've had such an illustrious life, career, and everything, before you went to straight-when you left the government. But you were such an important part of the growth of broadcast to me, and Our Town, and in the world. And what you did as Commissioner, and if you remember the days that I would call on you with Dick Chapin- Richard Wiley: Absolutely. Andy Ockershausen: ... from Nebraska. We were always interested in what the Commission was doing, and what you were doing. And it helped our industry tremendously. Richard Wiley and others at Federal Communications Commission Worked to Eliminate Outmoded Regulations in the 70s Richard Wiley: Well, we were trying to eliminate some of the old, outmoded regulations. The industry had changed and grown, and prospered, and the regulations remained the same. So, you and Dick were bringing in good ideas to try to make some changes. Andy Ockershausen: And before you would make them, Dean Burch was trying the same thing- Richard Wiley: Absolutely. Absolutely. He was my predecessor. Andy Ockershausen: Yeah, well he was your predecessor- Richard Wiley: Great guy. Andy Ockershausen: But he was never General Counsel like you are. Richard Wiley: No. Andy Ockershausen: I remember when you were the General Counsel- Richard Wiley: I was his General Counsel. Andy Ockershausen: That's it. That's correct. That was quite a team at the time, because you were on the same team, everybody's trying to get rid of these ridiculous restrictions. In addition ... Restrictions are good but when they're ridiculous, they're awful. Richard Wiley: Well, as life goes on, the industries change, technology changes, the regulation can't stay the same. And I think that's what we started. They've certainly gone much beyond where we were in the '70's. This was the '70's, Andy- Andy Ockershausen: Oh, I know! I remember that. Oh my God. But there was such a growth period in the industry in the '70's- Richard Wiley: Really was. Andy Ockershausen: ... was incredible, with the networks and- New Technologies Entered Market in the 70s | Satellite | Cable | Internet Richard Wiley: And other technologies were coming in at the time. Satellite, you know- Andy Ockershausen: We didn't know what they were. Richard Wiley: ... television, and cable, you know - nobody wondered whether cable was going to do anything, became of course, a very dynamic industry. And now we've got the internet, which has changed everything. Andy Ockershausen: Just the modest changes that we made in radio at the time, because everything was on a little disc and we had no tapes. It was ancient. Now all that is gone, Dick. Everything is gone up here somewhere, and we don't know where it is, but it works. We could watch a tape in a tape recorder, but we can't watch it now. Richard Wiley: Absolutely. Andy Ockershausen: But Dick, tell me now, you've had such an illustrious career,
Privacy Merry-go-Round: A busy week in federal activity by Wiley Rein LLP
Sara and Josh Talk About Shooting Down Drones by Wiley Rein LLP
Sara and Josh Talk About Drones by Wiley Rein LLP
Federal cybersecurity practitioners and vendors are scratching their heads over why President Donald Trump chose not to appoint a White House cybersecurity coordinator. But another opening is nearly as critical: the head of the Department of Justice's criminal division. That is a Senate confirmed position and former Justice Department counsel Megan Brown, now a partner at Wiley Rein, joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin to explain why it is critical for the Senate to confirm the president's nomination.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) plays an essential role in advising the president on how to exercise his or her authority to block foreign investments that might let the U.S.'s adversaries acquire sensitive American technology or intellectual property. A bipartisan proposal in Congress aims to expand CFIUS's powers. On Thursday, the Center for Strategic and International Studies convened a panel of Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon official; Ivan Schlager, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates; Nova Daly, Senior Public Policy Adviser, Wiley Rein LLP; and CSIS Vice President James Andrew Lewis, to talk about CFIUS and how it might change under the new law.
In recent years, the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union has become an arena where governments promote rival visions of the future of the organization and, more importantly, how the Internet itself should be governed. These debates reflect a growing tension around a foundational question: to what extent can and should nation-states act to manage the flow of information within their sovereign territory? As the Internet’s importance as a driver for global economic and social growth has grown over the past decade, so too has the interest of some governments to secure for themselves a larger role in regulating the technical, economic, and policy aspects of its management. -- Governments are driven by a range of objectives as they consider the future of the Internet, including access and uptake, competition policy, privacy and security, and, in some cases, regime stability. Will it be possible to accommodate some governments’ desire for a more robust role and still maintain essential democratic principles such as the free flow of information between people around the world, universal human rights, and the core belief that has driven the Internet’s exponential growth over the past decade: that users, companies, and civil society – not governments – ought to control the Internet’s future? What are the political, economic, and geopolitical factors driving Internet regulation and policies? Umair Javed moderated a discussion with Will Hudson of Google, Sally Wentworth of the Internet Society, and Patricia Paoletta of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis to explain recent activities at the UN to influence global Internet policy. -- Featuring: Will Hudson, Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google Inc.; Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP; and Sally Wentworth, Vice President of Global Policy Development, Internet Society. Moderator: Umair Javed, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP.
On May 1, the D.C. Circuit denied petitions for en banc review of United States Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission. The petitioners challenge the FCC’s Open Internet Order, in which the FCC established Internet access as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act and adopted net neutrality rules. At the same time, the new Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has announced that he plans to reclassify Internet access as a Title I information service and roll back some of the net neutrality rules. -- Daniel Berninger, one of the petitioners in the case, and Adam White, who has been counsel for the intervenors, joined us to discuss the status of the case. In particular, discussed the D.C. Circuit’s order denying rehearing, the concurring opinion by Judges Srinivasan and Tatel, the dissenting opinions from Judges Brown and Kavanaugh, the pending FCC rulemaking, and the potential for Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision affirming the FCC’s Open Internet Order. Brett Shumate, counsel to petitioners Alamo Broadband and Daniel Berninger, moderated the discussion. -- Featuring: Daniel Berninger, Founder, VCXC - Voice Communication Exchange Committee and Adam J. White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Moderator: Brett A. Shumate, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP.
The American Bankers Association and Washington Federal, a bank holding company, have filed a suit against the United States government for reducing the amount of dividends paid to banks that own Federal Reserve stock. In the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Federal Reserve agreed to pay 6% annual dividends to stockholders of regional Federal Reserve Banks, but Congress decreased that amount to 2% in 2015 in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or FAST Act, which appropriated the other 4% of would-be-dividends for highway funding. Proponents of the change argue that 6% dividends were exorbitant returns for the stock, and that banks are still guaranteed a positive return, even at 2%. -- Brett Shumate and Steve Obermeier of Wiley Rein, who represent the plantiffs in this case, joined us to discuss the pending litigation. -- Featuring: Stephen J. Obermeier, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP and Brett A. Shumate, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP.
On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Lee v. Tam. Simon Tam of The Slants, an Asian American rock band, applied to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office, but the application was denied. The Office claimed that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent,” citing the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” Tam appealed to a board within the Office but was again denied. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a panel of judges determined that the Office officials were within their rights to refuse the application. The Federal Circuit then reviewed the case en banc and found that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment and that the Office should not have refused the application. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. -- To discuss the case, we have Megan L. Brown, who is Partner at Wiley Rein LLP.
Can the government police speech it thinks is offensive, even when members of the group the government seeks to protect disclaim any offense? Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act allows the government to deny trademark registration to "disparaging" speech. On Wednesday, January 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Lee v. Tam, a case challenging the constitutionality of this statute. -- In Lee, an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants” was denied trademark registration after the Patent and Trademark Office found the trademark disparaging to Asians. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision. But the en banc Federal Circuit—without being asked—decided to vacate that decision and consider whether § 2(a) violates the First Amendment. The full Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the panel decision. The federal government then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. -- Is the Court likely to affirm the Federal Circuit decision striking down the disparagement clause as violative of the First Amendment? And what will be the implications if it does? Megan Brown and Dwayne Sam of Wiley Rein LLP attended the oral arguments and offered their impressions and predictions during this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call. -- Featuring: Ms. Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP and Mr. Dwayne D. Sam, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP.
Justice Scalia first entered public service in 1971, when he was appointed by President Richard Nixon to serve as the General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy (“OTP") in the White House. From that day in 1971 through his dissent in the Brand X case regarding broadband classification, Justice Scalia brought a deep understanding of technology policy to his career on the Supreme Court. And of course, Justice Scalia was never one to mince words. “It would be gross understatement to say that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not a model of clarity. It is in many important respects a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction," he observed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Bd. The Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group has brought together a panel of experts to discuss Justice Scalia's legacy on telecommunications and media issues and discuss current litigation through the lens of his jurisprudence. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Mr. Henry Goldberg, Goldberg, Godles, Wiener and Wright LLP; and Mr. Richard E. Wiley, Chairman Emeritus, Wiley Rein LLP. Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court.
Domain theft is a growing problem, as domain names can be easily transferred to overseas registrars and sold. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has received more than 140 complaints about domain-name thefts in the past 20 months. At least 15 cases seeking the return of domain names were filed in U.S. courts last year, up from five in 2013 and 10 in 2012. David Weslow, IP and New Media Attorney at Wiley Rein LLP, joins Bennet Kelley to discuss.
Legal Talk Network Producer Laurence Colletti interviews William Baker, budget officer of the Section of Science and Technology Law, at the 2015 ABA Midyear Meeting. Baker talks about the section’s focus on cutting edge legal issues as they intersect with technology and science. This includes education and discussion about subjects such as drones, 3D printing, cyber security, virtual worlds, driverless cars, facial recognition software, and other exciting inventions and discoveries. After thirty years at the big law firm Wiley Rein LLP, William Baker is now a partner at the Potomac Law Group, a virtual law firm in Washington D.C.
Attorney Charlie Lemley, from the law firm of Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C., discusses factors insurers should consider in deciding whether to offer independent counsel when defending an insured under a reservation of rights.
Attorney Charles C. Lemley at the law firm of Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C. discusses bad faith liability in the state of Florida and what insurers should be aware of.
In an interview that will be sure to interest entrepreneurs, start-ups, and domain name investors, David E. Weslow discusses: buy/sell domain name agreements, trademarks, auto-blogging software that is popular with WordPress-powered websites, UDRP issues, lawsuits, and much more.
How will the pharmaceutical companies, doctors and patients and legal cases be impacted by the recent SUPCO ruling in the Wyeth v. Levine case? Join Law.com bloggers and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi as they welcome Wyeth’s attorney, Bert W. Rein, founding partner of the law firm, Wiley Rein LLP, to discuss the wide-reaching impact this ruling will have for many years to come.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
