Environmental Law & Property Rights and Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Groups Podcast
Last week, a lawsuit was filed in an attempt to halt a plan by the City of Richmond, California, to seize home loans using the power of eminent domain. While most of the loans are "under water," most are also performing -- monthly payments are being made by homeowners in a timely fashion. The claimants assert that the City of Richmond plan is unconstitutional in at least one of several potential respects, making arguments about under-valuation and public use. Is this another Kelo moment for the courts? Are the claims ripe? These and other questions were addressed during our Teleforum, which will be open to the press.
- Professor Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
[Listen now!] Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
Given the breaking news, George Mason Law School Professor Todd Zywicki, Chapman University School of Law Professor John Eastman, and Mr. Noel Francisco, a Jones Day Partner who argued the case in the D.C. Circuit Court, will discuss today’s D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Noel Canning v. NLRB case, in which a unanimous three judge panel held the recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. CFPB Director Richard Cordray was appointed at the same time by the President using the same recess appointment authority.
Professor Todd Zywicki will also discuss his recently published article, "Policy-Based Evidence-Making at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." In the article, he first describes the mortgage rules very recently adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). He goes on to question whether the rationale for the new rules is supported by factual evidence. Finding they are not, he calls for greater oversight of the CFPB.
- Dr. John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law
- Mr. Noel J. Francisco, Jones Day
- Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
Texas Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Private-Property Owners in Case on Public Access to Beaches State Court Docket Watch Summer 2012
In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court recently ruled in Severance v. Paterson that the rights of private-property owners trump the public’s right to access beaches on private property. The court held 5-3 that when an act of nature “suddenly and dramatically” pushes back the vegetation line on a beach, the public easement that state law creates on beaches does not move along with it. In other words, while easements may change gradually, an avulsion does not entitle the state to a drastic expansion of its claim over existing private property. This article will describe the background and decision in Severance and examine how this case fits in with coastal-property jurisprudence... [Read more!]
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency: Compliance Orders and the Right of Judicial Review Engage Volume 13, Issue 2, July 2012
Damien Schiff July 30, 2012
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency promises to be important for practitioners and members of the public who must deal with the Clean Water Act, the scope of which, according to Justice Samuel Alito, “is notoriously unclear.” The decision may also affect other federal statutes and administrative law generally. This short essay sets forth a synopsis of the case, the Court’s opinions, and the decision’s possible impacts... [Read more!] SCOTUScast 05-30-12 featuring Andrew Morriss
On May 24, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. This case involves a section of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act stating that “[n]o person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.” The question was whether this prohibition extends to “unearned, undivided” fees that lenders sometimes charge to borrowers at the closing of mortgage transactions.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held unanimously that, for a plaintiff to establish a violation of the prohibition in question, he or she must demonstrate that the charges for settlement services were divided between two or more persons.
To discuss the case, we have Andrew Morriss, who is the D. Paul Jones, Jr. & Charlene Angelich Jones Chairholder of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law.