MENU

Litigation

Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power - Podcast

Litigation and Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Josh Blackman, Nicholas Bagley September 30, 2016

Six years after its enactment, Obamacare remains one of the most controversial, divisive, and enduring political issues in America. In this much-anticipated follow-up to his critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare (2013), Professor Blackman argues that, to implement the law, President Obama has broken promises about cancelled insurance policies, exceeded the traditional bounds of executive power, and infringed on religious liberty. At the same time, he writes that conservative opponents have stopped at nothing to unravel Obamacare, including a three-week government shutdown, four Supreme Court cases, and fifty repeal votes. Author Joshua Blackman and Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley joined us to discuss the book and the saga of Obamacare.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Josh Blackman,  Author, Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power, Associate Professor of Law, Houston College of Law
  • Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

Sanctioning (Government) Lawyers - Podcast

Litigation and Professional Responsibilities & Legal Education Practice Group Podcast
Richard W. Painter, Thomas H. Dupree, Jr. August 30, 2016

On May 19, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order in which it found that lawyers from the United States Department of Justice violated their duty of candor in the course of their representation and imposed sanctions. The court initially required additional ethics training for all Justice Department attorneys practicing in 26 states for a period of five years. The Court concluded, in part, that “the Justice Department lawyers knew the true facts and misrepresented those facts to the citizens of the 26 Plaintiff States, their lawyers and this Court on multiple occasions.” The Justice Department acknowledged that its attorneys made mistakes and misrepresentations to the court and opposing counsel, but contended that none were intentional, and agreed to some limited sanctions. Since then, the court has stayed its order.

What are the limits, if any, to Court sanctions for attorney conduct? Thomas H. Dupree Jr., who formerly served in the Department of Justice, and Richard Painter, whose experience includes service in the White House Counsel’s Office, discussed these issues on the podcast.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Thomas H. Dupree Jr., Partner, Gibson Dunn
  • Prof. Richard W. Painter, S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School

The Constitutionality of Independent Agencies: The CFPB - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Peter Conti-Brown, Gregory F. Jacob August 25, 2016

In April, the mortgage lender PHH Corporation challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) after being ordered by the CFPB to disgorge $109 million. PHH challenged the bureau’s legitimacy under Article II, and cited Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as relevant precedent, because PCA officers could be removed for cause, and then, only by officers of the SEC. Meanwhile, the CFPB cited Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which allowed the president to remove an FTC commissioner only for cause. Professor Peter Conti-Brown of The Wharton School and Gregory Jacob, partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP joined us to discuss the CFPB and the constitutionality of other independent agencies like it.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Peter Conti-Brown, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School
  • Mr. Gregory F. Jacob, Gregory F. Jacob Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Changing the Rules of Discovery - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Alexander R. Dahl, A. Benjamin Spencer August 19, 2016

A “requester pays” amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) would require that those seeking discovery pay for its costs, moving federal civil litigation away from the current “American rule” that requires all parties to bear their own litigation expenses, including the costs of responding to discovery requests. Supporters of “requester pays” argue that discovery requests can be so broad and costs can be so high that they become a disincentive to defend. Opponents claim that the amendment would make legal proceedings even more expensive for individual litigants, who would be unable to pay for the discovery necessary to make a case against larger and more powerful defendants. Here to discuss this idea are Alex Dahl of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP and Professor Benjamin Spencer of UVA School of Law.

Featuring:

  • Alexander R. Dahl, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
  • Prof. A. Benjamin Spencer, Earle K. Shawe Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law