International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
With final congressional review action on the Iran Deal just days away, is Congress empowered to act in a fully informed manner with the vital information pertinent to all side agreements? Is the IAEA predictably a trustworthy actor? What tools might the people’s branch of government utilize to provide oversight and enforcement capability if Iran is in violation? Prof. Alan Dershowitz and Ambassador Dennis Ross approached these questions from different perspectives drawn from deep historical and geopolitical experience. Prof. Dershowitz is author of a book entitled The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes? and Ambassador Ross most recently wrote "How to Put Some Teeth into The Nuclear Deal with Iran" with David Patraeus.
- Professor Alan Dershowtiz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
- Ambassador Dennis Ross, William Davidson Distinguished Fellow and Counselor, The Washington Institute
- Moderator: Jamil Jaffer, Former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
In what is being described as a "landmark" ruling by the National Labor Relations Board, a divided NLRB has changed a decades-long approach and made it easier for contract and temporary workers to unionize. The NLRB decision expands the traditional definition of "employee" to include shift workers, contract workers, and other temporary employees. What will the decision mean for workers and employers? Will it impact franchisers? Will it lead to more contested matters, as the NLRB has suggested that it will make further determinations on a case-by-case basis? These and other questions, including questions from the audience, were be addressed on our Teleforum call.
- Mr. Michael J. Lotito, Co-Chairman, Workplace Policy Institute and Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC
Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
On July 24, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion allowing a challenge to the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and of the recess appointment of its director to continue. Our expert discussed the implications of this decision and other recent developments in Dodd-Frank Act litigation.
- Gregory F. Jacob, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
When the United States government passed the Bill of Rights in 1791, its uncompromising protection of speech and of the press were unlike anything the world had ever seen before. But by 1798, the once-dazzling young republic of the United States was on the verge of collapse: Partisanship gripped the weak federal government, British seizures threatened American goods and men on the high seas, and war with France seemed imminent as its own democratic revolution deteriorated into terror. Suddenly, the First Amendment, which protected harsh commentary of the weak government, no longer seemed as practical. So that July, President John Adams and the Federalists in control of Congress passed an extreme piece of legislation that made criticism of the government and its leaders a crime punishable by heavy fines and jail time. Liberty’s First Crisis tells the story of the 1798 Sedition Act, the crucial moment when high ideals met real-world politics and the country’s future hung in the balance. Author Charles Slack discussed his latest book and answered questions from the audience.
Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
On June 30, 2015, the Supreme Court decided to revisit whether the First Amendment permits the government to compel its employees to financially support a union by granting certiorari in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915. In Friedrichs, the Court will consider whether to overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which held that public employees can be compelled to financially support union collective-bargaining with government, but not union political activities.
The Court’s grant of certiorari in Friedrichs comes on the one-year anniversary of its decision in Harris v. Quinn, where Court criticized Abood’s rationales, but did not overrule Abood after finding it inapplicable to the non-employee Medicaid providers who brought the case. Unlike Harris, Friedrichs squarely presents the issue decided in Abood—whether public school teachers can be required to pay compulsory union fees as condition of their employment.
The Friedrichs petitioners argue that Abood should be overturned because there is no distinction between bargaining with government and lobbying government—both are political speech. The respondent California Teachers Association, however, counters that union bargaining with government is akin to bargaining with a private employer, and that it wrongful for teachers to get a so-called “free ride” on union bargaining efforts.
Is the Court likely to overrule Abood? And what will be the implications if it does?
- Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine
- William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.
Short video on Alexander Hamilton
Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell discusses some of the surprising facts you might not know about the face of the $10 bill.
- Hon. Michael W. McConnell, The Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. Director, Stanford Constitutional Law Center. Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2002-2009).