MENU

MULTIMEDIA

Ohio v. Clark - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 3-4-15 featuring Michael O'Shea
Michael O'Shea March 04, 2015

On March 2, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ohio v. Clark. This case involves two questions. First, whether for purposes of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause an individual’s statutory obligation to report suspected child abuse qualifies that person as a law enforcement agent, and second, whether a child's statements given outside of court to his daycare teachers count as “testimonial” evidence under the Confrontation Clause. 

To discuss the case, we have Michael O’Shea, who is a Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City University College of Law.

Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 3-4-15 featuring Thomas Plank
Thomas Plank March 04, 2015

On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wellness Int’l Network, Limited v. Sharif, which presents two questions. The first is whether a bankruptcy court has power under Article I of the Constitution to determine, where an issue of state property law is involved, that property in the debtor’s possession belongs to the bankruptcy estate.  The second question is whether, notwithstanding the limits of Article I authority, the consent of litigants can permit a bankruptcy court to exercise Article III judicial power--and if so, whether a litigant's continued participation in litigation can constitute implied consent.

To discuss the case, we have Thomas Plank, who is the Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 2-14-15 featuring Mark Braden
Mark Braden February 24, 2015

On November 12, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, which was consolidated with Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.

These cases ask whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans classify black voters by race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by intentionally packing them into districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.

To discuss the case, we have Mark Braden, who is Of Counsel at Baker & Hostetler.

Jennings v. Stephens - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 2-19-15 featuring Kent Scheidegger
Kent S. Scheidegger February 19, 2015

On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jennings v. Stephens. The issue in this case involves a federal habeas petitioner who sought relief based upon three theories of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court granted relief on two theories but rejected the third. The question in this case was whether the prisoner must file a separate notice of appeal and a motion for a certificate of appealability in order to rely upon his third theory (which the district court had rejected) in defending against the State’s appeal.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that the prisoner in this case was not required to file a cross-appeal or seek a certificate of appealability to rely on his third theory on appeal, because the theory was a defense of a favorable judgment below on alternate grounds.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of Jennings' third claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

To discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, who is the Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. 

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 2-13-15 featuring Justin Walker
Justin Walker February 13, 2015

On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. This case involves two questions. The first question is whether the statute of limitations for a claim of civil fraud against the federal government brought by a relator (private individual bringing suit on behalf of the government) can be indefinitely tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act. The second question asks whether the False Claims Act's "first-to-file" rule, which presents an incentive for relators to be the first to bring claims of fraud, simply requires that only one case can be pending at a time or requires that once a case has been filed, all cases based upon the same facts and alleging the same type of fraud are barred. 

To discuss the case, we have Justin Walker, who is currently executive director of the Global Game Changers Children's Education Initiative.  This year he will join the faculty at the University of Louisville as an Assistant Professor of Law.