Scotuscast

On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, to decide whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders. This panel will discuss key take-aways from the oral argument and implications for administrative litigation at the Federal Trade Commission, and perhaps for other agencies as well.Featuring:Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeRonald Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PCHenry Su, Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP[Moderator] Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ’s decision, and Cochran objected.Before the SEC could rule on Cochran’s objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran’s. Cochran filed a federal lawsu

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina).In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.Tune in to hear our experts break down the oral argument.Featuring:Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton SchoolDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

The Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit between rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation regarding Warhol’s works based on Goldsmith’s photo of the musician Prince. The fair use doctrine excuses from liability certain unlicensed uses of copyrighted works. The question before the Court in Warhol v. Goldsmith is whether Warhol’s creation of a series of paintings copied from the photo, and the licensure of those paintings to periodicals, constitutes a fair use. Underlying the case are core intellectual property questions about the nature and scope of the fair use doctrine.Following oral arguments on October 12, Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the respondent (Goldsmith), joined us to break down the case.Featuring:Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court will address the dormant commerce clause in the context of a California law regarding the housing of farm animals. Specifically, the Court will decide "whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause..."Oral arguments took place on October 11. The Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro joined us to analyze the arguments and examine the issues underlying the case.Featuring:Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

On October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan.Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state’s population. With these new lines, only one of the state’s seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.Featuring:David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc. Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Millions of dollars are at stake in a dispute over whether uncashed MoneyGrams qualify as “a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable,” pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2503, and therefore whether they should be escheated to the debtor's or creditor's state.Join us for a discussion with Prof. Donald J. Kochan on the background of the case, takeaways from the oral argument, and the potential impacts the statutory interpretation involved.Featuring:Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

One of the longest-standing environmental law challenges is how to define the scope of waters regulated under the Clean Water Act known as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). After decades of regulatory uncertainty, the Supreme Court has again taken up a case that may provide clarity. On October 3rd, the Court will hear oral argument in Sackett v. EPA, the first case of this new term and the second time the case will be reviewed by the high court. Perhaps this time the Court will definitively determine what is a WOTUS. Will the Court definitively determine what is a WOTUS?Join us for a discussion on this important case with Damien Schiff (arguing for petitioners), Tony Francois (represented petitioners in the Ninth Circuit), and William Snape (Director of the American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Environment and Energy Law). The panel will be moderated by Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Matt Leopold, who served previously as EPA general counsel and assisted in drafting the 2020 Navigable

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case.Featuring:Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul StevensCarrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence ThomasMo

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan’s merits.This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this spe

On June 13 and 15, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Denezpi v. United States and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas respectively. Both cases dealt with issues of Native American law. In Denezpi, a 6-3 Court ruled that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, in a case where a man was prosecuted in both a federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses. In Ysleta, the Court ruled 5-4 that the state of Texas could not control gambling activities on the lands of the Ysleta del sur Pueblo Native tribe.Featuring:Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLPJennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general’s motion to intervene on the commonwealth’s behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, related to the rights of the unborn. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.Featuring: Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vacated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capital sentences. The Court held that the judge's conduct of voir dire conformed to its precedents and reversed the First Circuit's holding that the judge had violated a rule established by that circuit under its supervisor power. The Court held that courts of appeals have no power to circumvent or supplement legal standards established in Supreme Court precedents.The Court also held that the judge was within his authority to exclude from the penalty trial hearsay evidence of Tsarnaev's brother's involvement in an unrelated murder. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires admission of all mitigating evidence no matter how dubious or how weakly mitigating.Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Ju

On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:Arif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s handgun licensing law that required New Yorkers to demonstrate a “proper cause” in order to be granted a license to carry a pistol or revolver in public. The petitioners, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, were denied licenses to carry a firearm in public after listing their generalized interest in self-defense as the reason for seeking the license. New York denied their license application because a generalized interest in self-defense failed to satisfy the state’s proper cause requirement. Both men sued, claiming that New York had violated their Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights in doing so. A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in the first major case on firearms regulation that the Court has considered in over a decade. Pl

On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Patel v. Garland, holding that Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings enumerated under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2). The judgment of the 11th circuit was affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Barrett. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Joining today to discuss this decision and its implications is Kelly Holt, associate in the Issue and Appeals practice at Jones Day.

On June 15, 2022 the Court decided Golan v. Saada, holding that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Margaret Ryznar of Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law.

On June 23rd, the Court decided Vega vs. Tekoh, a case which concerned whether an un-mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the fifth amendment and might support a section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. Joining today to discuss the Court’s decision is Misha Tseyltin, partner at Troutman Pepper and leader of the firm’s national Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group.

On March 30th, the Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. vs. Moriana, a case which concerned whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act. With a decision likely to be rendered in the coming weeks and months, Theane Evangelis, partner in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn and Co-Chair of the firm’s global Litigation Practice Group, joins the program to give analysis.

In April, 2022, the Court heard arguments in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, a bankruptcy case concerning fee increase exemptions in two states. Joining today to discuss the argument is Allyson Ho, partner in the Dallas Office of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher and co-chair of the Firm’s nationwide Appellate and Constitutional Law practice group. Stay tuned for the post-decision episode of this case!