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.

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 Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.Featuring:Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

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. Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for the future of firearm regulation in America. Featuring:Prof. Mark W. Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law in the Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law

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.