MENU

Supreme Court

When is a law too vague to be Constitutional?

Short video with Ilya Shapiro discussing Johnson v. United States
Ilya Shapiro April 18, 2015

Senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, Ilya Shapiro explains the confusion concerning what constitutes a violent felony conviction under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. In this upcoming Supreme Court case, Petitioner Johnson claims the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague while the government asserts that Johnson’s conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun satisfies the violent felony requirement of the statute.

Ilya Shapiro is co-counsel on the amicus brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Federal Defenders, Families against Mandatory Minimums and the Cato Institute in support of the Petitioner.
 
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Environmental Protection Agency Back in the Supreme Court: Michigan v. EPA - Podcast

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
Jonathan H. Adler March 27, 2015

On March 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case is comprised of three consolidated petitions, one from a group of 21 states, one from the trade group for electrical power plants, and one from the trade group for suppliers of coal to these plants. The Court will answer “Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.”

  • Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

The Future of Auer Deference - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Jeffrey Pojanowski, Christopher J. Walker, Adam J. White March 19, 2015

On March 9, 2015, in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that agencies are not required to use notice-and-comment rulemaking to significantly revise its prior "authoritative" interpretation of a regulation. But several of the Justices wrote separately to criticize sharply the doctrine of "Auer deference," under which courts give utmost deference to agencies' interpretations of regulation.

So what is the future of Auer deference, in the aftermath of Mortgage Bankers? On this teleforum, two administrative law scholars offered their views.

  • Prof. Jeffrey Pojanowski, University of Notre Dame Law School
  • Prof. Christopher J. Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
  • Moderator: Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates