Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Immigration law and enforcement have been on the front pages for the last several years, and that shows no signs of changing. One aspect to our national debate on immigration that hasn't received as much attention as it should is the effect that the several states can have on the issue. Through its policing powers and criminal sentencing guidelines, a state can influence who the federal immigration authorities can remove from the country. Our experts discussed the important constitutional issues that these trends present.
Litigation Practice Group Podcast
- Peter K. Nunez, Chairman, Center for Immigration Studies Board of Directors
- Margaret D. Stock, Counsel to the Firm, Cascadia Cross-Border Law
- Moderator: Brian M. Fish, Member, Federalist Society Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Executive Committee
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.
SCOTUScast 12-3-14 featuring Megan Brown
- C. Frederick Beckner, III, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Megan L. Brown December 03, 2014
On November 10, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell. This case concerns whether a document from a state or local government stating that an application has been denied, but listing no reasons for the denial, can satisfy the Communications Act’s “in writing” requirement.
To discuss the case, we have Megan Brown, who is a partner at WileyRein. 2014 National Lawyers Convention
Saving Congress from Itself proposes a single reform: eliminate all federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. This action would reduce federal spending by over $600 billion a year and have a profound effect on how we govern ourselves. The proliferation of federal grants-in-aid programs is of recent vintage: only about 100 such grants existed before Lyndon Johnson took office, and now they number more than 1,100. Eliminating grants to the states will result in enormous savings in federal and state administrative costs; free states to set their own priorities; and improve the design and implementation of programs now subsidized by Washington by eliminating federal regulations that attend the grants. In short, it will free states and their subdivisions to resume full responsibility for all activities that fall within their competence, such as education, welfare, and highway construction and maintenance. And because members of Congress spend major portions of their time creating grants and allocating funds assigned to them (think earmarks), eliminating grants will enable Congress to devote its time to responsibilities that are uniquely national in character.
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this closing discussion on "Saving Congress from Itself: Emancipating the States & Empowering Their People" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.
- Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (ret.) and former U.S. Senator
- Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007 – 2010); and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
- Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Robert R. Gasaway, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Mayflower Hotel 2014 National Lawyers Convention
Is President Obama failing in this basic obligation of the President? Allegations of lawlessness have been made about his decisions not to enforce the immigration law, to suspend some requirements of the Affordable Care Act, and to flout Congress’s requirement of thirty-day notice before freeing prisoners from Guantanamo. Are these fair charges or does the President enjoy inherent constitutional power or specific statutory authority to decline enforcement? What should be Congress’s reaction to non-enforcement? Does this pattern of non-enforcement imply anything more general about the President’s legal or political philosophy?
The Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group presented this panel on "The President's Duty to Take Care that the Law Be Faithfully Executed" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.
- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Professor Emeritus of Law, Dale E. Bennett Professor of Law, Louisiana State University Law School
- Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
- Prof. Neal E. Devins, Goodrich Professor of Law, Cabell Research Professor, Professor of Government, Director, Institute of Bill of Rights Law; and Director, Election Law Program, The College of William & Mary
- Prof. Christopher H. Schroeder, Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies; Co-Director of the Program in Public Law, Duke Law School
- Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
- Introduction: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007 – 2010); and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; and Chairman, Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group