Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts

On December 1, 2013, Amazon announced that it might make deliveries to homes and businesses in the future using unmanned aerial drones. As the domestic use of drones rises, legal issues will arise as well over who controls airspace and who has the right to regulate the use of such aircraft. Privacy issues will also be implicated. Professor Gregory S. McNeal discussed these issues with a live Teleforum audience. -- Featuring: Prof. Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law. Moderator: Christian Corrigan, Director of multimedia, The Federalist Society.

The Supreme Court was less than one month away from hearing arguments in Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. and answering the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act when the case settled. Ilya Shapiro discussed this development and its impact on future civil rights litigation for a live Teleforum audience. -- Featuring: Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute?. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Everyone knows that the proceeds and instrumentalities of a crime are confiscable by the state. What they don’t know is that the laws that authorize this type of “civil forfeiture” are subject to abuse. Some allege that state and federal law enforcement authorities use civil forfeiture as a revenue-generation tool, creating perverse incentives. This system sometimes falls on innocent owners, many of whom don’t have the legal skills or money to fight back. Our experts will discuss whether this area of our legal system is in need of reform. -- Featuring: Mr. Andrew R. Kloster, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Legal Center, The Heritage Foundation? and Ms. Darpana Sheth, Attorney, Institute for Justice?. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

May an employer and union enter into an agreement under which the employer exercises its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union organizing, its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer’s property and employees, and its freedom of contract by obtaining the union’s promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer’s business? Or does doing so violate Federal law? These and other questions will be addressed as we discuss oral argument in the Supreme Court case, UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall. -- Featuring: Mr. Luke A. Wake, Staff Attorney, NFIB Small Business Legal Center. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

With Congress re-visiting patent reform, the Federalist Society welcomed a panel of experts to discuss various reform bills, their implications, possible unintended consequences, and more to a live Teleforum audience. -- Featuring: Mr. James R. Copland, Director, Center of Legal Policy, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; Prof. Thomas F. Cotter, Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School; and Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

When a party accused of patent infringement responds by seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid or not infringed, the nominal status of the parties is reversed: The patentee (who would have been the plaintiff in any traditional suit) becomes the declaratory judgment defendant, while the accused infringer becomes the plaintiff. When, if ever, does this shift the burden to prove that a product does not infringe a patent? Prof. Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law discussed these issues and the oral argument in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific. -- Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law. Moderator: Christian Corrigan, Director of multimedia, The Federalist Society.

In his new book, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan's Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today, William Perry Pendley, a former member of the Reagan administration and author of some of Reagan's environmental policies, tells the gripping story of how Reagan fought a new wave of environmentalists in his efforts to enact laws that protected both nature and American prosperity. He sets the record straight on Reagan’s environmental record, and discusses how we should tackle modern environmental issues in light of it. Mr. Pendley discussed the book on a Teleforum conference call and fielded comments from R. Timothy McCrum as well as our call-in audience. -- Featuring: Mr. William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Operating Officer, Mountain States Legal Foundation? and Mr. R. Timothy McCrum, Partner, Crowell & Moring. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

In his new book, Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer lays out facts about the corruption and extortion in every level of government, on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Schweizer recently appeared on 60 Minutes to discuss several of the issues covered in the book, and elaborated further for? a Teleforum audience. The Hon. Eileen O'Connor joined him to offer her comments. -- Featuring: Mr. Peter Schweizer, William J. Casey Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford Univesity and Hon. Eileen O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society .

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 6, 2013 in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case in which the lower Court of Appeals held that a legislative prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity. Was the lower court correct? Our expert, Christian Legal Society Senior Counsel Kim Colby, attended the hearing and offered her analysis of the merits of the case and its likely outcome in light of the oral arguments. -- Featuring: Ms. Kim Colby?, Senior Counsel, Christian Legal Society. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Do the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, or is unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligation? What is the extent of authority under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. §229, and how does it affect the balance of power between the state and federal governments? -- On November 4, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Bond, which examines these questions. Our experts attended the oral arguments and offer their analysis of the merits of the case and the likely outcome in light of the day’s proceedings. -- Featuring: Prof. John C. Eastman?, Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of Law? and Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz?, Georgetown University Law Center?. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

US Steel LogoMs. Tammy McCutchen joined us for a Courthouse Steps Teleforum after oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Sandifer v. Unites States Steel Corp. on the issue of the meaning of the term “clothes” in Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The impact of the Court’s decision may have a substantial impact on employers, especially manufacturers. -- Under the FLSA, generally, employees must be paid for donning and doffing protective clothing if they are required by law or the employer to change into their gear at the work site. However, Section 3(o) provides an exception to the rule for a unionized workforce by allowing employers and unions to bargain over whether, and under what terms, employees will be paid for “time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday.” -- Since 1947, the collective bargaining agreement between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers provided that the company would not compensate employees for “time spent in preparatory and closing activities.” Some of the steelworkers sued alleging that U.S. Steel violated the FLSA by failing to pay employees for donning and doffing flame-retardant pants and jackets, work gloves, steel-toed boots, a hard hat, safety glasses, ear plugs, and a hood that covers the top of the head, the chin, and the neck. The question before the Court is whether these items are included within the scope of the term “clothes” in Section 3(o). If the Court answers in the negative, manufacturers around the country could be liable for millions, and more millions in back wages, for failing to pay employees for donning and doffing as bargained for with their unions. -- Also interesting to watch for in this case is the Court’s reaction to U.S. Department of Labor’s opinion letters on this issue. In 2002 and 2007, DOL issued an opinion letter stating that such gear is covered under Section 3(o), but DOL reversed that opinion in 2010. However, DOL reversed again – filing an amicus brief in favor of U.S. Steel and requesting that the Court not defer to the 2010 opinion. -- Unions are also on both sides of this issue. The AFL-CIO filed amicus on behalf of the employees, but the United Steelworkers has not weighed in at any level in this litigation. Rather, during contract negotiations that occurred in 2008, after this lawsuit was filed, the United Steelworkers agreed to stronger and more specific language for the CBA confirming that employees would not be compensated for time spent “donning and doffing protective clothing.” -- Featuring: Ms. Tammy D. McCutchen?, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson, PC?. Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

This Teleforum conference call examined how the Federal Communications Commission and states can work together to address the transition from circuit-switched to Internet Packet (IP) telecommunications. Our experts addressed the recent National Association of Regulatory Utility Commssionsers Task Force Report on Cooperative Federalism. Topics include how to address 911, consumer protection, and interconnection issues for IP-based services, how jurisdictions can and should be allocated between the FCC and the states, and how NARUC and the states can operate via a “cooperative federalism” model that utilizes federal and state resources to get to the right answers. -- Featuring: Mr. David W. Danner, Chairman, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission; Hon. Paul Kjellander, President, Idaho Public Utilities Commission; and Mr. Randolph J. May, President, The Free State Foundation. Moderator: Mr. Gregory E. Sopkin, Partner, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, LLP.

In his most recent book, The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information "Criminal", Christopher Horner draws on his many previous experiences using Freedom of Information Act requests in pursuit of climate change information to examine the transparency of the current presidential administration and offers his readers advice on how they can best utilize the FOIA process. He spoke about the book to a Teleforum audience, with Clark Neily joining to offer his comments. -- Featuring: Mr. Christopher Horner, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Center for Energy and Environment and Mr. Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

On June 26th, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two same sex marriage cases: the Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and Defense of Marriage Act (United States v. Windsor) cases. Please listen as our experts discuss the decisions and their implications in this previously recorded call. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Our experts discuss recent developments in property takings and public use law in state legislation, and state and federal judicial decisions. Among other issues, they also discuss the broader context of these developments in relationship to the history of judicial and legislative attitudes towards property rights.? -- Featuring: Prof. James W. Ely Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus, Vanderbilt University Law School and Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society