MENU

Litigation

Net Neutrality Litigation

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum Friday, October 16, 01:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

After suffering two judicial setbacks, most recently in the D.C. Circuit’s Verizon v. FCC decision in January 2014, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new net neutrality regulations and subjected broadband providers to public utility regulation under Title II of the Communications Act. The petitioners and intervenors challenging the FCC’s order recently filed their opening briefs outlining their arguments opposing the FCC’s latest attempt to regulate the internet.

In this Teleforum, counsel for two of the net neutrality petitioners and the intervenors will discuss the issues being raised in the D.C. Circuit appeal. The panelists will describe the challenges to the FCC’s authority to regulate the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Is broadband a telecommunications service subject to public utility regulation or is it an information service? Can the FCC adopt rules to regulate the Internet under Section 706? Are broadband providers protected by the First Amendment? How will the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in King v. Burwell and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, and other constitutionally-rooted canons of statutory construction, affect the net neutrality case? Can the FCC ban paid prioritization of Internet traffic? The panelists will explore these and other issues in this important Teleforum.

  • Brett Shumate, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
  • Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates

The Rise of “Empty Suit” Litigation™: Where Should Tort Law Draw The Line?

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum Wednesday, September 09, 03:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

In The Rise of “Empty Suit” Litigation™: Where Should Tort Law Draw The Line?, Victor E. Schwartz discusses the need to stop all litigation where an individual or class action plaintiff has suffered no real harm, physical, emotional or economic. In his article, Schwartz criticizes finding liability for the estimated cost of medical monitoring following exposure to a potentially harmful substance absent a physical injury. He also examines class action litigation claiming that a product’s actual value was lower than the purchase price, or that the resale value of a product diminished because of an alleged latent defect, even when the product functioned properly for most or all consumers. Of course, he also addresses both individual claims where there has been no real injury, or economic loss and class actions that rely on speculative or expert-driven theories of harm or damages. Join us for this Teleforum where Mr. Schwartz will explain his article in greater depth, and answer questions from our audience.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Victor E. Schwartz, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association - Podcast

Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
Erwin Chemerinsky, William Messenger August 27, 2015

On June 30, 2015, the Supreme Court decided to revisit whether the First Amendment permits the government to compel its employees to financially support a union by granting certiorari in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915. In Friedrichs, the Court will consider whether to overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which held that public employees can be compelled to financially support union collective-bargaining with government, but not union political activities.

The Court’s grant of certiorari in Friedrichs comes on the one-year anniversary of its decision in Harris v. Quinn, where Court criticized Abood’s rationales, but did not overrule Abood after finding it inapplicable to the non-employee Medicaid providers who brought the case. Unlike Harris, Friedrichs squarely presents the issue decided in Abood—whether public school teachers can be required to pay compulsory union fees as condition of their employment.       

The Friedrichs petitioners argue that Abood should be overturned because there is no distinction between bargaining with government and lobbying government—both are political speech. The respondent California Teachers Association, however, counters that union bargaining with government is akin to bargaining with a private employer, and that it wrongful for teachers to get a so-called “free ride” on union bargaining efforts.

Is the Court likely to overrule Abood? And what will be the implications if it does?         

  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine
  • William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

Supreme Court Bankruptcy Round Up - October Term 2014 - Podcast

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Podcast
Thomas Plank, Zvi Rosen, David Skeel July 28, 2015

The Supreme Court issued a number of notable opinions in the area of bankruptcy law during the recently concluded term. Our experts offered their analysis on recent developments in the field and took questions from a call-in audience.

  • Prof. Thomas Plank, Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
  • Prof. Zvi Rosen Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law
  • Prof. David Skeel, S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School