MENU

FACULTY DIVISION

SCOTUScast 10-15-14 featuring Teresa Collett

On December 3, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service. This case concerns whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to employees who are not pregnant but have work limitations, to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who share similar abilities and limitations.

To discuss the case, we have Teresa Collett, who is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

SCOTUScast 12-10-14 featuring Paul Figley

On December 10, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two related cases: United States v. Wong and United States v. June. 

In United States v. Wong the question is whether the six-month time bar for filing suit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling. In U.S. v. June, the question is whether the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling.

To discuss the case, we have Prof. Paul Figley, who is the Associate Director of the Legal Writing and Rhetoric Program at the American University Washington College of Law.

 

Litigation Practice Group Podcast

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
SCOTUScast 12-10-14 featuring Alexander Volokh

On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads. The question in this case is whether the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to a putatively private entity--Amtrak--by involving it in the creation of standards used to determine whether freight railroads are according the preference to Amtrak’s passenger trains that is required by federal law regarding the use of rail lines.

To discuss the case, we have Prof. Alexander “Sasha” Volokh, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Emory University School of Law. Professor Volokh received his JD and PhD in economics from Harvard University.

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast

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. The Supreme Court will have a chance to consider the question in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, scheduled to be heard on December 8, 2014. Our experts discussed the case and previewed the oral arguments.

  • Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
  • Prof. Michael E. Herz, Arthur Kaplan Professor of Law, Co-Director, Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
  • Moderator: Brian Callanan, Associate, King & Spalding