Litigation and International & National Security Law Practice Groups Podcast
In February of 2015, federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen (Southern District of Texas) temporarily blocked President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which would have shielded as many as five million people from deportation proceedings. Judge Hanen subsequently refused the federal government’s request to reconsider, and last week the government filed an emergency motion in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that court to overturn the injunction. This week, Judge Hanen and federal government lawyers reportedly sparred over representations made in court by government attorneys on details of waivers already granted under the executive actions. What is the basis of Judge Hanen’s injunction? Is it likely to be overturned or upheld by the Fifth Circuit? What are the next steps in the proceedings?
SCOTUScast 3-6-15 featuring Jonathan Adler
- Prof. John C. Eastman, Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
- Brianne Gorod, Appellate Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
On March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in King v. Burwell. The question in this highly anticipated case is whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to offer tax credit subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges.
To discuss the case, we have Prof. Jonathan Adler who is the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups
On November 20, 2014, President Obama, with much attention from the media and the public, announced executive action on immigration. Our discussion will address the specifics of the President’s actions, and the legality of those actions. What exactly was said and done by the President, and how do his actions differ from acts he previously asserted were beyond his unilateral power? Has the President exceeded his constitutional authority to act? What happens next? Please join us over the lunch hour for a discussion with three experts in the field.
- Mr. Kamal Essaheb, Immigration Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center
- Mr. David Rivkin, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
- Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
- Moderator: Mr. Peter Bisbee, Membership Director and Associate Director of External Relations, The Federalist Society
National Press Club Environmental Law & Property Rights and Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Groups Podcast
Endangered Species Act listing settlements between the Environmental Protection Agency and private parties have not always allowed state participation or input. Truncated legal proceedings may not sufficiently recognize private partnerships with states to remedy habitat conservation concerns. State actors, energy industries, ranchers, and private property owners have asked how the process may better serve all interests. As some states face settlement decrees that represent potentially dozens – to over a hundred – new listings, is there a way to ensure equity and full process for all concerned parties?
Litigation Practice Group Podcast
- Hon. Susan Combs, Former Comptroller of Public Accounts, State of Texas
- Prof. Justin Pidot, University of Denver Sturm College of Law
- William Yeatman, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
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.
- C. Frederick Beckner, III, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP