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 lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ’s removal protections. Tune in to hear a breakdown of the oral argument.

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 Waters Protection Rule defining WOTUS.Featuring: Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationDamien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. William Snape, Director of Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of LawModerator: Matt Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth

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 ThomasModerator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

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 specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.Featuring: David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPAJustin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.