Post-Argument SCOTUScast featuring Paul Mirengoff
On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case involves the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Title VII duty to investigate claims of discrimination levied against an employer and to make good faith efforts to eliminate discriminatory employment practices before filing suit against that employer. The question this case asks is whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.
To discuss the case, we have Mr. Paul Mirengoff, Mr. Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. and is a blogger at powerlineblog.com.
SCOTUScast 1-26-15 featuring Ryan Scott
On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Heien v. North Carolina, the question in this case was whether a police officer’s mistaken understanding of a law can provide the reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.
In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a stop under the Fourth Amendment. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. The decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina was affirmed.
To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
In December 2013, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released a proposal on the so-called “Single Point of Entry” (SPOE) strategy as a means of resolving large failing banks without financial-market disruption. In a recent paper, AEI scholars Paul Kupiec and Peter Wallison raised questions about legal support for the SPOE strategy in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, whether the strategy can be used for resolving the largest failed banks, and the economic consequences of using the SPOE approach to attenuate the systemic risk of a large-bank failure. To facilitate a SPOE resolution, regulators recently proposed new requirements that large financial firms have enough long-term debt and equity — or total loss absorbing capacity — to cover potential losses and bank recapitalization. Mr. Kupiec and Mr. Wallison’s paper questions whether these measures will allow authorities to resolve large banks without a bailout or disorderly break-up.
Mr. Kupiec and Mr. Wallison will presented their paper and fielded audience questions during a live Teleforum conference call.
- Paul H. Kupiec, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
- Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
On Tuesday, January 20, the Supreme Court heard argument in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, a First Amendment case involving the manner in which elected judges may raise campaign funds for themselves. The issue is whether a widely adopted provision of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds, violates the First Amendment. Personal solicitation of campaign funds raises concerns that prospective or sitting judges might favor or disfavor litigants and attorneys based on how they responded to such solicitation. On the other side of the issue, once States have decided to elect judges, free political speech becomes a critical component of any fair and democratic election process. In addition to broader arguments regarding the proper scope and function of the First Amendment in the context of judicial elections, this case will involve more focused First Amendment questions regarding whether the current rule, as adopted in Florida, is actually effective in preserving the existence or appearance of impartiality and whether there are less restrictive means – such as recusal – to further such goals.
- Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC
- M. Edward Whelan III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc. The Supreme Court has previously attempted twice to hear cases reaching the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, in Magner v. Gallagher and Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, and in both instances the cases were settled less than a month before oral arguments. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to “refuse to sell or rent . . . or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.” Do policies that can be demonstrated to have a discriminatory effect on certain racial groups, without a showing of discriminatory intent, violate the statute?
- Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation