MENU

Federal Courts

Harris v. Quinn - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 7-28-14 featuring Andrew Grossman
Andrew Grossman July 28, 2014

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harris v. Quinn. The central question in this case concerned whether a state can, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, compel in-home care providers paid for through Medicare, also known as “personal assistants” or “PAs,” to financially support a union to be their exclusive representative with respect to employment-related collective bargaining.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from PAs who do not want to join or support the union. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. The decision of the Seventh Circuit was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman who is an Associate at Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute.

Who Judges Who is a Judge? - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation and Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Groups Podcast
Kristin E. Hickman, Tuan Samahon July 18, 2014

At bottom, in Kuretski v. Commissioner, presidential power is at stake. Judges of the U.S. Tax Court (26 USC 7443(f)), were arguably characterized by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Freytag v. Commissioner, as exercising a portion of the judicial power of the United States. Recently, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed when it found that the Tax Court exercises only executive power. What are the implications of the D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion on the president’s removal power? Has the D.C. Circuit misread Freytag, or faithfully applied it?

  • Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
  • Prof. Tuan Samahon, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law

Detained Suspected Terrorists: Try in Military Courts or Civilian Courts? - Event Audio/Video

2014 Annual Student Symposium
Laura Donohue, Christopher Jenks, Peter S. Margulies, Deborah Pearlstein, A. Raymond Randolph March 25, 2014

Detained Suspected Terrorists: Try in Military Courts or Civilian Courts? - Event Audio/VideoThis panel will address the ongoing debate regarding trying, convicting and punishing suspected terrorists. Should military tribunals be abandoned in favor of trying individuals in Article III courts? A mere seven individuals held in Guantanamo Bay have been tried and convicted by military commissions, while DOJ reports that more than 500 individuals have been convicted of terrorism related offenses. What has prevented the trial of suspected terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay? Should military commissions for suspected terrorists and other enemies be abandoned or do they serve a valuable function?

The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014.

Panel 2: “DETAINED SUSPECTED TERRORISTS: TRY IN MILITARY COURTS OR CIVILIAN COURTS?”
1:45 – 3:30 p.m.
J. Wayne Reitz Union

  • Prof. Laura Donohue, Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center
  • Prof. Christopher Jenks, Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic and Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
  • Prof. Peter S. Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law
  • Prof. Deborah Pearlstein, Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit

University of Florida Levin College of Law
Gainesville, FL

[Watch or listen now!]

Is the FISA Court Too Secret? - Event Audio/Video

2014 Annual Student Symposium
Alex Abdo, Gregory S. McNeal, Charles T. Canady March 25, 2014

Is the FISA Court Too Secret? - Event Audio/VideoThe proceedings before the FISA Court are ex parte, and secret, prompting critics to argue that the court has become a rubber stamp, authorizing governmental activity without democratic accountability. Are activities conducted pursuant to FISA too secret? Does FISA require more oversight or accountability? Are there any feasible reforms that can effectively balance the need for foreign intelligence gathering against the rights of individuals who are surveilled? This debate will address these important questions.

The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this debate during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014.

Debate 2: “IS THE FISA COURT TOO SECRET?”
11:00 – 12:15 p.m.
J. Wayne Reitz Union

  • Mr. Alex Abdo, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project
  • Prof. Gregory McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Moderator: Justice Charles T. Canady, Florida Supreme Court

University of Florida Levin College of Law
Gainesville, FL

[Watch or listen now!]