Appellate Litigation

Federal Health Care Exchanges Not Eligible for Subsidies: Halbig v. Burwell - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Jonathan H. Adler, Nicholas Bagley July 22, 2014

In a case decided on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled that subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought health insurance in exchanges run by an individual state or the District of Columbia, and not to people who purchased health insurance on the federally run exchange, How did the court reach its conclusion, and is the court’s reasoning sound? Will the ruling make the Affordable Care Act financially unworkable? Is a final ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court inevitable?

  • Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  • Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

Supreme Court Criminal Law Round Up - October Term 2013 - Podcast

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Dean Mazzone, Kent S. Scheidegger July 22, 2014

The Supreme Court issued a number of notable opinions in the area of criminal law during the recently concluded term. Members of the Federalist Society’s Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Executive Committee offered their analysis on recent developments in the Supreme Court’s criminal law jurisprudence and fielded questions from a call-in audience.

  • Dean Mazzone, Chief of the Enterprise and Major Crimes Division, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office
  • Kent S. Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Aereo Shot Down as Copyright Violator: ABC v. Aereo - Podcast

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
Mark F. Schultz July 14, 2014

In a June 25, 2014, decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ABC v. Aereo that Aereo publicly performs copyrighted works, in violation of the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause, when its technology allows its paid subscribers to watch television programs over the Internet in near real-time as the programs are broadcast over the air. Has the decision increased certainty and predictability in the world of copyright, or did the Court’s reasoning inject more uncertainty? Are there implications in the decision for what is anticipated to be a legislative effort to change existing copyright law?

  • Prof. Mark Schultz, Associate Professor and Director of Faculty Development, Southern Illinois University and Senior Scholar and Co-Director of Academic Programs, Center for the protection of Intellectual property, George Mason University School of Law

Recess Appointments Case Decided: NLRB v. Noel Canning - Podcast

Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast
Noel J. Francisco, Michael B. Rappaport, Kristin E. Hickman June 27, 2014

Constitution and gavelOn June 26, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in NLRB v. Noel Canning. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court holds that recess appointments made in pro forma sessions are invalid. Our experts discussed the decision and its implications.

  • Noel J. Francisco, Partner, Jones Day
  • Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law; Associate Director, Corporate Institute, University of Minnesota Law School
  • Prof. Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law, and Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law

Property Rights in the Supreme Court: Limelight and Nautilus - Podcast

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
Aaron M. Panner, Thomas G. Saunders June 27, 2014

patentThe U.S. Supreme Court recently decided another important pair of property rights cases. Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments concerns definiteness and the scope of patents. In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the Court held that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed under Section 217(a) or any other statutory provision. How important are these decisions? What are their implications?

  • Aaron M. Panner, Partner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C
  • Thomas G. Saunders, Partner, WilmerHale