Term Talk: Recent Episodes
FJC
The nations top legal scholars discuss what Federal Judges need to know about the U.S. Supreme Courts most impactful decisions.
Criminal Law. Voir Dire. Death Penalty Act. Experts discuss the broad authority lower courts have to decide evidentiary questions in the context of high profile and death penalty cases.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Criminal Law. Confrontation Clause. Experts discuss the tension between evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Criminal Law. Confrontation Clause. Experts discuss the tension between evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Criminal Law. Voir Dire. Death Penalty Act. Experts discuss the broad authority lower courts have to decide evidentiary questions in the context of high profile and death penalty cases.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the Court’s clarification of content-based and content-neutral speech regulation, as well as the important distinction between government as speaker and government as creator of forums for private speech in First Amendment jurisprudence.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the authority of elected bodies to censure their members for speech and actions. They also discuss how the Court’s view of core political speech runs counter to congressional attempts to prevent financial misconduct during campaigns and undue influence after candidates are elected.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the authority of elected bodies to censure their members for speech and actions. They also discuss how the Court’s view of core political speech runs counter to congressional attempts to prevent financial misconduct during campaigns and undue influence after candidates are elected.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Free Speech Clause. Experts discuss the Court’s clarification of content-based and content-neutral speech regulation, as well as the important distinction between government as speaker and government as creator of forums for private speech in First Amendment jurisprudence.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
The Establishment and Free Expression of Religion Clauses. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Experts discuss the Court’s redefinition of government neutrality to require support of both secular and religious schools and the potential impact on government support of many secular activities going forward. Experts also discuss the exacting form of strict scrutiny the Court requires when the government restricts the religious activities of incarcerated persons in the context of the execution chamber.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Establishment and Free Expression of Religion Clauses. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Experts discuss the Court’s redefinition of government neutrality to require support of both secular and religious schools and the potential impact on government support of many secular activities going forward. Experts also discuss the exacting form of strict scrutiny the Court requires when the government restricts the religious activities of incarcerated persons in the context of the execution chamber.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Establishment and Free Expression of Religion Clauses. Experts discuss school prayer and the Court’s displacement of the Lemon Test with an analysis of history and tradition.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The Establishment and Free Expression of Religion Clauses. Experts discuss school prayer and the Court’s displacement of the Lemon Test with an analysis of history and tradition.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The right to bear arms. Experts discuss the Court’s 2nd Amendment expansion to include the right to bear and keep arms outside of the home, and the difficulty of applying the Court’s historical analysis test to new regulations.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Tara Grove, Professor, UT Austin School of Law; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
The right to bear arms. Experts discuss the Court’s 2nd Amendment expansion to include the right to bear and keep arms outside of the home, and the difficulty of applying the Court’s historical analysis test to new regulations.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Tara Grove, Professor, UT Austin School of Law; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Civil Rights. §1983. Malicious Prosecution and Miranda Warnings. Experts discuss how the Court resolved a circuit split as to what constitutes a favorable outcome allowing a claim for malicious prosecution to go forward, and whether violations of Miranda warning rules can support a claim under §1983.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Civil Rights. §1983. Malicious Prosecution and Miranda Warnings. Experts discuss how the Court resolved a circuit split as to what constitutes a favorable outcome allowing a claim for malicious prosecution to go forward, and whether violations of Miranda warning rules can support a claim under §1983.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Civil Rights. §1983 and Bivens. Excessive Force. Experts discuss what is required for precedent to put officers on notice of actions deemed unconstitutional, as well as the likelihood that new claims will ever be recognized under Bivens.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Civil Rights. §1983 and Bivens. Excessive Force. Experts discuss what is required for precedent to put officers on notice of actions deemed unconstitutional, as well as the likelihood that new claims will ever be recognized under Bivens.
Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings Law School; Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.
Administrative Law. Experts discuss the limits of agency authority and the emerging Major Questions Doctrine in the context of employer COVID vaccination and testing requirements.
Participants. Paul Clement, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Administrative Law. Experts discuss the limits of agency authority and the emerging Major Questions Doctrine in the context of employer COVID vaccination and testing requirements.
Participants. Paul Clement, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
State Secrets Privilege. FISA. Experts discuss the interplay between the common law State Secrets Privilege and the statutory Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Participants. Paul Clement, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
State Secrets Privilege. FISA. Experts discuss the interplay between the common law State Secrets Privilege and the statutory Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Participants. Paul Clement, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Reproductive Rights. Substantive Due Process. Experts discuss the Dobbs decision’s impact on women’s health and reproductive rights, as well as Substantive Due Process Liberty Clause jurisprudence.
Reproductive Rights. Substantive Due Process. Experts discuss the Dobbs decision’s impact on women’s health and reproductive rights, as well as Substantive Due Process Liberty Clause jurisprudence.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Tara Grove, Professor, UT Austin School of Law; Beth Wiggins, Research Division Director, Federal Judicial Center.
Takings. Experts discuss the potential demise of the Penn Central four-part test and the difficulty in determining compensation for temporary and episodic access requirements.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Constitutional Criminal Law. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s elimination of the Watershed Exception for procedural rule changes in Edwards v. Vannoy, and the lack of need for specific findings in life without parole sentencing of juveniles in Jones v. Mississippi.
Participants. Laurie L. Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Suzanna Sherry, Professor, Vanderbilt Law School; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Constitutional Criminal Law. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s elimination of the Watershed Exception for procedural rule changes in Edwards v. Vannoy, and the lack of need for specific findings in life without parole sentencing of juveniles in Jones v. Mississippi.
Participants. Laurie L. Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Suzanna Sherry, Professor, Vanderbilt Law School; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Federal Criminal Statutes. Experts discuss the Court’s refusal to read statutes broadly and the importance of judges considering the impacts of race and addiction in sentencing.
Participants. Laurie L. Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Federal Criminal Statutes. Experts discuss the Court’s refusal to read statutes broadly and the importance of judges considering the impacts of race and addiction in sentencing.
Participants. Laurie L. Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Takings. Experts discuss the potential demise of the Penn Central four-part test and the difficulty in determining compensation for temporary and episodic access requirements.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Standing. Experts discuss the novel theory of standing by inseverability, limitations on Congress’ ability to confer standing through legislation, and the questions raised by allowing nominal damages to save some completed harms from mootness.
Participants. Suzanna Sherry, Professor, Vanderbilt Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Jurisdiction. Experts discuss changes in specific personal jurisdiction jurisprudence to include the incorporation of relatedness, and what might come next.
Participants. Paul Clement, Partner Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Jurisdiction. Experts discuss changes in specific personal jurisdiction jurisprudence to include the incorporation of relatedness, and what might come next.
Participants. Paul Clement, Partner Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Standing. Experts discuss the novel theory of standing by inseverability, limitations on Congress’ ability to confer standing through legislation, and the questions raised by allowing nominal damages to save some completed harms from mootness.
Participants. Suzanna Sherry, Professor, Vanderbilt Law School; Evan Lee, Professor Emeritus, UC Hastings College of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Voting Rights Act. Watch experts discuss the limits the Supreme Court placed on Sec. 2 of the VRA to regulate time, place, and manner restrictions, and the implications for the VRA.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Laurie L. Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Voting Rights Act. Watch experts discuss the limits the Supreme Court placed on Sec. 2 of the VRA to regulate time, place, and manner restrictions, and the implications for the VRA.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Laurie L. Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Free Speech and Free Association. Watch experts discuss the Court’s first look at public school regulation of off campus student speech, and the burden donor disclosure requirements have on Free Association rights.
Participants. Melissa Murray, Professor, NYU Law School; Paul Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Hamid Khan, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Free Speech and Free Association. Watch experts discuss the Court’s first look at public school regulation of off campus student speech, and the burden donor disclosure requirements have on Free Association rights.
Participants. Melissa Murray, Professor, NYU Law School; Paul Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Hamid Khan, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Free Exercise of Religion. Watch experts discuss the Court’s shift toward a more robust Free Exercise Clause in the context of contracting and COVID restrictions, and the red flag raised by government discretionary decision making.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Free Exercise of Religion. Watch experts discuss the Court’s shift toward a more robust Free Exercise Clause in the context of contracting and COVID restrictions, and the red flag raised by government discretionary decision making.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Fourth Amendment. Search and Seizure. Watch experts discuss the Court’s refusal to broaden the Community Caretaking exception and doctrine of hot pursuit in favor of protecting privacy in the home, and the different standards applied to seizure in civil and criminal cases.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Berkeley School of Law; Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Fourth Amendment. Search and Seizure. Watch experts discuss the Court’s refusal to broaden the Community Caretaking exception and doctrine of hot pursuit in favor of protecting privacy in the home, and the different standards applied to seizure in civil and criminal cases.
Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Berkeley School of Law; Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.
Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s shift away from a strong Establishment Clause toward a more robust Free Exercise Clause when considering the constitutionality of giving public aid to religious organizations.
Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s shift away from a strong Establishment Clause toward a more robust Free Exercise Clause when considering the constitutionality of giving public aid to religious organizations.
Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s broadening of the ministerial exception to discrimination claims and the shift toward more robust Free Exercise and weaker Establishment Clauses.
Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s broadening of the ministerial exception to discrimination claims and the shift toward more robust Free Exercise and weaker Establishment Clauses.
Experts discuss the different legal standards applied to racial discrimination claims brought under §1981 and Title VII, as well as the Court’s hesitation to broaden Bivens claims to cover cross-border shootings.
Experts discuss the different legal standards applied to racial discrimination claims brought under §1981 and Title VII, as well as the Court’s hesitation to broaden Bivens claims to cover cross-border shootings.
Experts analyze what the Executive must do to properly rescind DACA, and when Due Process rights attach to immigrants that have crossed the U.S. border.
Experts analyze what the Executive must do to properly rescind DACA, and when Due Process rights attach to immigrants that have crossed the U.S. border.
Experts discuss how subpoenas issued to third parties for the personal records of a sitting President impact the Separation of Powers doctrine, as well as the Court’s rejection of Executive claims of absolute immunity.
Experts discuss the impact of agency for cause termination provisions and the potential unconstitutional restraint on Executive Power they create.
Experts discuss how subpoenas issued to third parties for the personal records of a sitting President impact the Separation of Powers doctrine, as well as the Court’s rejection of Executive claims of absolute immunity.
Experts discuss the impact of agency for cause termination provisions and the potential unconstitutional restraint on Executive Power they create.
Experts discuss a criminal law jurisdictional ruling impacting nearly half of Oklahoma land and with implications across a broad array of laws and regulations. Also discussed is how Kansas v. Glover’s narrow holding prompts questions about future interpretations of reasonable suspicion traffic stops if applied to the many possible differing factual scenarios.
Experts discuss a criminal law jurisdictional ruling impacting nearly half of Oklahoma land and with implications across a broad array of laws and regulations. Also discussed is how Kansas v. Glover’s narrow holding prompts questions about future interpretations of reasonable suspicion traffic stops if applied to the many possible differing factual scenarios.
Experts discuss the constitutionality of admitting privileges requirements for abortion providers, and whether exceptions to ACA-required contraceptive coverage can be administratively expanded to include moral objection.
Experts discuss the constitutionality of admitting privileges requirements for abortion providers, and whether exceptions to ACA-required contraceptive coverage can be administratively expanded to include moral objection.
Sex Discrimination. Title VII definition of sex includes sexual orientation and identity.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law, Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, and Elizabeth Wiggins, Director of the Federal Judicial Center’s Research Division, discuss Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia’s expanded definition of sex under Title VII, and the impact the decision will have on Federal Judges.
Cases discussed: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Altitude Express v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex Discrimination. Title VII definition of sex includes sexual orientation and identity.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law, Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, and Elizabeth Wiggins, Director of the Federal Judicial Center’s Research Division, discuss Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia’s expanded definition of sex under Title VII, and the impact the decision will have on Federal Judges.
Cases discussed: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Altitude Express v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission