Civil Rights and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Groups Podcast
Numerous states have passed voter identification laws, and the Supreme Court has permitted them to remain in effect. Nonetheless, voter ID remains a highly controversial issue. Former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III discussed voter fraud and the importance of voter ID laws and answered audience questions on a live Teleforum conference call.
- Hon. Edwin Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus, The Heritage Foundation
Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
On January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the law dictating the potential path of the Keystone XL pipeline through the state was not unconstitutional. President Obama previously cited the pending lawsuit as a reason to delay making an approval decision on the controversial pipeline project. Nebraska’s former Deputy Attorney General Katie Spohn argued the case, and she joined a Teleforum conference call to discuss the decision and potential upcoming Keystone XL litigation.
- Katie Spohn, Partner, Bruning Law Group, LLC
- Moderator: J. Tyler Ward II, Member, Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Executive Committee
SCOTUScast 1-29-15 featuring Erik Zimmerman
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Gelboim v. Bank of America Corporation. This case concerns whether and in what circumstances the dismissal of all claims in one civil action that had been consolidated with other cases for pre-trial purposes, in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding, is final and immediately appealable?
In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held unanimously that a lower court order dismissing petitioners' case in its entirety removed petitioners from the consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding, thereby triggering their statutory right to appeal. The judgment of the Second Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.
To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an Olin-Searle-Smith Fellow and Constitutional Law Center Fellow at Stanford Law School.
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Paul G. Cassell, a University of Utah School of Law professor and a former federal judge, will discuss victims' rights to restitution at the federal level. He will focus his presentation on a controversial practice used in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York -- secret settlements of fraud cases without notification to the victims of the fraud. The victims are, without notice, unable to seek restitution. Professor Cassell alleges that the practice violates the Crime Victim’s Restitution Act (although the Department of Justice disputes this claim).
- Hon. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Endowed Chair in Criminal Law, The University of Utah College of Law
Religious Liberties Practice Group Podcast
On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted cert in four same-sex marriage cases from the Sixth Circuit (one case from each of four states of the circuit, -- Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky). The Court called for Reply Briefs by April 17, with oral argument and decision expected this term. Cert was granted on two questions about the Fourteenth Amendment. The questions are: whether the Fourteenth Amendment "require[s]" a "state to issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex", and/or "to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed" in another state or jurisdiction.
The relationship between the two questions is asymmetrical. An affirmative answer to the first settles the second likewise, where the Court could coherently, hold that states must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, but not necessarily license them.
- Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, University of Notre Dame Law School
- Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute
Post-Argument SCOTUScast featuring Todd Gaziano
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. This case involves the Fair Housing Act, which states that it is 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." The question in this case is whether disparate impact claims, which permit liability based on disproportionate impact in the absence of express discriminatory intent, are allowed under the Fair Housing Act.
To discuss the case, we have Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation.