Advertise on podcast: Term Talk

First Amendment. Speech. Experts discuss the Supreme Court decisions applying intermediate scrutiny to speech restrictions encompassing both protected and unprotected speech in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, and to restrictions on foreign ownership of a social media platform in TikTok v. Garland. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Paul Clement, former Solicitor General of the United States and founding partner at Clement and Murphy, PLLC; and Beth Wiggins, Director, Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

First Amendment. Speech. Experts discuss the Supreme Court decisions applying intermediate scrutiny to speech restrictions encompassing both protected and unprotected speech in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, and to restrictions on foreign ownership of a social media platform in TikTok v. Garland. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Paul Clement, former Solicitor General of the United States and founding partner at Clement and Murphy, PLLC; and Beth Wiggins, Director, Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

First Amendment. Religion. Experts discuss the Supreme Court's expanded application of the Yoder exception to school curriculum in Mahmoud v. Taylor; state discrimination among religions in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor; and the tensions created by public funding of religious charter schools in Oklahoma v. Drummond. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Paul Clement, former Solicitor General of the United States and founding partner at Clement and Murphy, PLLC; and Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.

First Amendment. Religion. Experts discuss the Supreme Court's expanded application of the Yoder exception to school curriculum in Mahmoud v. Taylor; state discrimination among religions in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor; and the tensions created by public funding of religious charter schools in Oklahoma v. Drummond. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Paul Clement, former Solicitor General of the United States and founding partner at Clement and Murphy, PLLC; and Beth Wiggins, Director of Research, Federal Judicial Center.

Federal Jurisdiction. Standing. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's broadening of the zone of interest for standing in F.D.A. v R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and how predictable downstream economic harm can confer standing on non-regulated parties in Diamond Alternative Energy v. E.P.A. In their analysis of Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, they discuss how the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by deciding that the removal of federal claims terminates federal supplemental jurisdiction. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

Federal Jurisdiction. Standing. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's broadening of the zone of interest for standing in F.D.A. v R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and how predictable downstream economic harm can confer standing on non-regulated parties in Diamond Alternative Energy v. E.P.A. In their analysis of Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, they discuss how the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by deciding that the removal of federal claims terminates federal supplemental jurisdiction. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

Civil Procedure. Relief from judgment. Civil rights. Prevailing party. Legal experts discuss Lackey v. Stinnie and the Supreme Court's interpretation of a prevailing party in civil rights litigation entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, and in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman and Waetzig v. Halliburton, the requirements for relief from judgment under F.R.C.P. 60(b). Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

Civil Procedure. Relief from judgment. Civil rights. Prevailing party. Legal experts discuss Lackey v. Stinnie and the Supreme Court's interpretation of a prevailing party in civil rights litigation entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, and in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman and Waetzig v. Halliburton, the requirements for relief from judgment under F.R.C.P. 60(b). Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, San Francisco Law School; and Beth Wiggins, Director of the Research Division, Federal Judicial Center.

Administrative Law. Non-delegation Doctrine. Appointments Clause. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of intelligible principles that support congressional delegation of power to agencies in F.C.C. v. Consumers' Research and congressional delegations of appointment powers to heads of agencies under the Appointments Clause in Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt. They discuss the potential impact of the Court's decision in Trump v. Wilcox on congressional restrictions of executive removal powers. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Administrative Law. Non-delegation Doctrine. Appointments Clause. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of intelligible principles that support congressional delegation of power to agencies in F.C.C. v. Consumers' Research and congressional delegations of appointment powers to heads of agencies under the Appointments Clause in Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt. They discuss the potential impact of the Court's decision in Trump v. Wilcox on congressional restrictions of executive removal powers. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Civil Rights. § 1983. Prison Litigation Reform Act. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of language that confers individual rights in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the requirement of a jury finding when there is a factual dispute over exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Perttu v. Richards. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Civil Rights. § 1983. Prison Litigation Reform Act. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of language that confers individual rights in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the requirement of a jury finding when there is a factual dispute over exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Perttu v. Richards. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Equal Protection. Title VII. Experts discuss the Supreme Court's application of rational basis review to restrictions on transgender medical care for minors in United States v. Skrmetti, and in Ames v. Ohio, the application of the same evidentiary standard to all protected classes under Title VII. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Equal Protection. Title VII. Experts discuss the Supreme Court's application of rational basis review to restrictions on transgender medical care for minors in United States v. Skrmetti, and in Ames v. Ohio, the application of the same evidentiary standard to all protected classes under Title VII. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law and Procedure. Experts discuss how the Supreme Court's decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma defined the duty to correct false testimony, and how the Court's decision in Barnes v. Felix requires excessive force analysis to consider the totality of the circumstances. Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law and David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor at UC Law, San Francisco; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.