MENU

Administrative Law

Amtrak and the Non-Delegation Doctrine in the Supreme Court - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
C. Frederick Beckner December 10, 2014

Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) in 2008. Section 207 of PRIIA requires the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak to “jointly develop” the metrics and standards for Amtrak’s performance that are used by the Surface Transportation Board to trigger the investigation of private freight railroads for failing to provide preferences for Amtrak passenger trains (as required by federal law) if Amtrak fails to meet the standards. Is PRIIA Section 207 an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity? The D.C. Circuit said yes, concluding that the statute is the functional equivalent of granting General Motors the authority to write regulations covering its industry rivals. Will the Supreme Court agree and breathe life into the rarely invoked non-delegation doctrine? Our expert attended the oral argument on Monday, December 8, and offered his impressions to a Teleforum audience.

  • C. Frederick Beckner, III, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Amtrak and the Resurgence of the Non-Delegation Doctrine? - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Ronald A. Cass, Michael E. Herz, Brian Callanan December 05, 2014

Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) in 2008. Section 207 of PRIIA requires the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak to “jointly develop” the metrics and standards for Amtrak’s performance that are used by the Surface Transportation Board to trigger the investigation of private freight railroads for failing to provide preferences for Amtrak passenger trains (as required by federal law) if Amtrak fails to meet the standards. Is PRIIA Section 207 an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity? The D.C. Circuit said yes, concluding that the statute is the functional equivalent of granting General Motors the authority to write regulations covering its industry rivals. The Supreme Court will have a chance to consider the question in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, scheduled to be heard on December 8, 2014. Our experts discussed the case and previewed the oral arguments.

  • Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
  • Prof. Michael E. Herz, Arthur Kaplan Professor of Law, Co-Director, Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
  • Moderator: Brian Callanan, Associate, King & Spalding

Without Standing, Are We All Sitting Ducks? - Event Video

2014 National Lawyers Convention
Jonathan H. Adler, Amanda Cohen Leiter, Robert N. Weiner, Patrick Wyrick, A. Raymond Randolph, Eileen O'Connor November 17, 2014

For a federal court to consider an issue, there must be a case or controversy, and the parties before the court must have standing, i.e., a stake in the outcome of the decision.  While standing is important in our system of justice, the courts are not the only avenue for relief (the ballot box, theoretically, being another).  This panel will explore the history, development and current status of standing doctrine in regulatory litigation, with particular focus on the extent to which standing and related justiciability requirements have come to serve as a shield against meaningful judicial review of agency actions.

The Federalist Society's Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group presented this panel on "Without Standing, Are We All Sitting Ducks?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  • Prof. Amanda Cohen Leiter, Associate Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law   
  • Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP
  • Mr. Patrick Wyrick, Solicitor General, State of Oklahoma
  • Moderator: Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • Introduction: Hon. Eileen O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; and Chairman, Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Why Government Fails So Often: And How It Can Do Better - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Peter H. Schuck, Brian Callanan October 09, 2014

From healthcare to workplace conduct, the federal government is taking on ever more responsibility. At the same time, Americans have never been more disaffected with Washington, with many seeing it as an intrusive, incompetent, wasteful giant. The most alarming consequence of ineffective policies, in addition to unrealized social goals, is the growing threat to the government's democratic legitimacy. Understanding why government fails so often--and how it might become more effective--is an urgent responsibility of citizenship. In his book, Why Government Fails So Often: And How It Can Do Better, lawyer and political scientist Peter Schuck provides a wide range of examples and an enormous body of evidence to explain why so many domestic policies go awry--and how to right the foundering ship of state. Professor Schuck joined a Teleforum conference call to discuss the book, with Brian Callanan of King & Spalding offering comments.

Executive Order 13672: The LGBT Executive Order - Podcast

Religious Liberties Practice Group Podcast
Carl H. Esbeck, Stanley Carlson-Thies, Robin Fretwell Wilson September 18, 2014

On July 21, 2014 President. Obama issued Executive Order 13672, amending EO 11246 which has been around since 1965. The new EO added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of prohibited bases of employment discrimination by federal contractors. The order applies to all employees of a contractor, not just those working on a federal contract. It also requires the contractor to hold itself out to the public as an equal opportunity employer with respect to these newly protected classes, and to post in conspicuous places notice to employees and job applicants of its nondiscrimination duties.

Some religious organizations are federal contractors. This has long been the practice with respect to international relief efforts, as well as for services to meet the religious needs of those in prison and serving in the armed forces. Religious organizations petitioned the White House for an exemption from these new requirements. Although they did not succeed, they were able to convince President Obama to leave intact a more limited religious exception permitting religious organizations to staff on a religious basis, an exception drawn from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

  • Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia School of Law
  • Dr. Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, Founder and President, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; Senior Fellow and former Director of Social Policy Studies, Center for Public Justice; former Director, White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives
  • Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Director, Program in Family Law and Policy, University of Illinois College of Law