MENU

MULTIMEDIA

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

Debate: Hobby Lobby Decision - Event Audio/Video

Federalist Society with the American Constitution Society and the National Constitution Center
Frederick Gedicks, Kevin Walsh, Jeffrey Rosen, Caroline Fredrickson March 27, 2015

The Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the federal government from requiring closely held corporations to provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The National Constitution Center, the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society convene the first in a series of constitutional debates to be held across America. In the inaugural debate, Frederick Gedicks of Brigham Young University and Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond argue for and against the motion: "Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided."

This debate was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. 

Speakers:

  • Prof. Frederick Gedicks, Brigham Young University 
  • Prof. Kevin Walsh, University of Richmond 
  • Moderator: Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO, National Constitution Center
  • Introduction: Ms. Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society

The opinions expressed in this debate are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Political Contribution Limits, Labor Unions, and Businesses - Podcast

Litigation and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Groups Podcast
James Manley March 26, 2015

The laws of six states prohibit businesses—but not unions or other groups—from contributing to political parties, committees, or candidates. On February 24, 2015, the Goldwater Institute filed suit on behalf of two family-owned Massachusetts businesses to challenge Massachusetts’ political contribution ban. Since 1908, businesses have faced a total contribution ban, but special rules implemented in 1988 allow unions to contribute as much as $15,000 before any disclosure requirements or other contribution limits apply to the union. After unions have donated $15,000 to campaigns, their PACs can continue to contribute up to the ordinary limits. Meanwhile, business-funded PACs are banned from contributing. Does the Massachusetts law violate state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection, free speech, and free association?

  • Jim Manley, Senior Attorney, Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, The Goldwater Institute

The Texas Immigration Case: What Does it Mean, What Happens Next? - Podcast

Litigation and International & National Security Law Practice Groups Podcast
John C. Eastman, Brianne Gorod March 25, 2015

In February of 2015, federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen (Southern District of Texas) temporarily blocked President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which would have shielded as many as five million people from deportation proceedings. Judge Hanen subsequently refused the federal government’s request to reconsider, and last week the government filed an emergency motion in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that court to overturn the injunction. This week, Judge Hanen and federal government lawyers reportedly sparred over representations made in court by government attorneys on details of waivers already granted under the executive actions. What is the basis of Judge Hanen’s injunction? Is it likely to be overturned or upheld by the Fifth Circuit? What are the next steps in the proceedings?

  • Prof. John C. Eastman, Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
  • Brianne Gorod, Appellate Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

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