Constitutional Law

PODCAST: The Demise of Chevron Deference: A Discussion with Professor David Franklin

tlconlineeditor

Summary: 

The Supreme Court continued its project of reshaping administrative law this term.  Perhaps its most widely discussed decision in this area was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court overruled the doctrine of Chevron deference.  How did the Chevron doctrine operate?  Why, after forty years, did the Supreme Court set it aside?  And what will judges do when interpreting regulatory statutes that are either ambiguous or silent on the question pending before the court?     

DePaul College of Law Professor David Franklin discusses these questions on this Touro Law Review podcast with Associate Dean Rodger Citron.  Franklin clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, has taught Administrative Law and Constitutional Law for more than a decade, and recently wrote about the Loper Bright decision for Slate, see This Supreme Court has betrayed Antonin Scalia’s legacy. (slate.com). 

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.   

Learn more about Professor David Franklin

Continue reading →

PODCAST: The Supreme Court and the “Independent State Legislature Theory”: A Discussion with Nicholas Maggio

tlconlineeditor

Summary: In Moore v. Harper, decided last year, the Supreme Court addressed the “independent state legislature theory.”  In a case arising out of an election in North Carolina, proponents of the theory contended that North Carolina’s Supreme Court did not have the authority to review a legal claim that the state legislature had adopted an illegally gerrymandered congressional map.  The Supreme Court rejected the theory by a 6-3 vote in Moore.  In this Touro Law Review podcast, Nicholas Maggio, an attorney who has written about the independent state legislature theory, discusses the case – in particular, its relevance during an election year and its significance for understanding the current Supreme Court – with Associate Dean Rodger Citron. 

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.   

Learn more about Nicholas Maggio

Continue reading →

PODCAST: Litigating Slavery’s Reach: A Story of Race, Rights, and the Law During the California Gold Rush

tlclawreview


Dred Scott v. Sandford looms over American legal and political history as perhaps the most infamous Supreme Court case of all time. In Dred Scott, the Court struck down the Missouri Compromise, holding that enslaved persons were property under the Due Process Clause and that slaveholders had the absolute right to bring them into any federal territory in the nation.

Did you know that a case raising similar issues as Dred Scott was litigated in California five years before the Supreme Court decided that case? Professor Jason Gillmer provides a thoughtful and detailed account of the California case, In re Perkins, in his forthcoming article, “Litigating Slavery’s Reach: A Story of Race, Rights, and the Law During the California Gold Rush.”  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=353902. At issue was the California Fugitive Slave Act of 1852, which declared that enslaved persons brought to California while it was a federal territory remained enslaved even after California entered the Union as a free state. Shortly after the statute was enacted, a case arose testing the law’s constitutionality, pitting the freedom of three enslaved men against the alleged Due Process rights of their enslaver. In this Touro Law Review podcast with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Professor Gillmer explores the story that gave rise to the case, how he researched it, its relation to Dred Scott, and why the story is important to today.

Find Professor Gillmer’s book at https://ugapress.org/book/9780820351636/slavery-and-freedom-in-texas/.    

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.   

Our guest today is Professor Jason Gillmer.

Continue reading →