Podcasts

  • What's Next? The President's Supreme Court Nominee

     
    On Jan. 31, President Trump announced Judge Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court. Gorsuch will fill a seat left vacant for almost one year by the Senate majority’s obstructionism. The confirmation process is almost certain to be contentious.
     
    On Feb. 1, 2017 ACS convened prominent legal scholars to speak about Judge Gorsuch's nomination. The speakers addressed the following questions:  
     
    • By releasing a list of 21 potential Supreme Court candidates during the 2016 campaign, has President Trump raised concerns about the impartiality and fairness of a nominee on his list?
    • What questions should Senators ask during the confirmation process?
    • Given Trump’s statements that his nominee will overturn Roe v. Wade, what is the role of justice?
    • What is at stake for the nation?

    Featured Speakers:
    • Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy, Moderator
    • Erwin Chemerinsky, ACS Board Member, Dean and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, UC Irvine School of Law
    • Melissa Murray, Interim Dean and Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law, UC Berkeley Law
    • Christopher Kang, ACS Board Member, National Director, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans

    Click on the button above to begin playing the audio in a new window.

     

  • ACS Briefing Call:What’s Next? The President’s Executive Orders on Immigration

     
    On Monday Jan. 30, Caroline Fredrickson, president, American Constitution Society; Nicholas Espiritu, staff attorney, National Immigration Law Center; and David Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law and faculty director, Jenner & Block Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic, University of Chicago School of Law, discussed President Trump’s Executive Order barring admission into the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days, suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days, and barring any entry by Syrian refugees without time limitation. The participants addressed the following questions:
    • Are the orders constitutional?
    • On what basis did five federal judges issue stays of the orders?
    • What are the implications of reports that Customs and Borders Protection officers were not implementing those court orders?
    • What can we expect next in the litigation challenging the orders?
    • And what opportunities exist for lawyers to engage the crisis?

    Featured Speakers:       

    Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy, Moderator
    Nicholas Espiritu, Staff Attorney, National Immigration Law Center
    David Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Jenner & Block Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic, University of Chicago School of Law

    Click on the button above to begin playing the audio in a new window.

     

  • Foreign Influence and the Presidency

     
    On Tuesday, Jan. 24, ACS hosted a briefing call featuring Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School; Deepak Gupta, appellate advocate and principal at Gupta Wessler PLLC and Joshua Matz associate at Robbins Russell LLP. These three leading lawyers discussed the lawsuit alleging that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments. The participants addressed the following questions:
    • What are "emoluments" and is Trump receiving them?
    • Is this a political question? Are there jurisdictional questions?
    • Who has standing to bring cases in regards to a violation of the Emoluments Clause?
    • What is the remedy?

    Featured Speakers:
    Caroline Fredrickson, ACS president, moderator
    Deepak Gupta, partner, Gupta Wessler PLLC
    Joshua Matz, associate, Robbins Russell LLP
    Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School
     

    Click on the button above to begin playing the audio in a new window.

     

  • The Calm After the Voting Rights Storm?

     
    The last decade has seen a steady rise in restrictions on the right to vote, with cuts to early voting, limitations on absentee voting, polling place closures, voter ID laws and changes to voter registration becoming routine in legislatures across the country. The 2016 presidential election, the first in over 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, was also pervaded with calls for “poll watchers” to ensure “ballot integrity” and to protect against voter fraud. The election saw an unprecedented stream of litigation challenging laws and procedures regarding the right to vote. On Jan. 12, 2017 the American Constitution Society hosted a conference call featuring attorneys behind several of these lawsuits. The attorneys provided an update and in-depth discussion of the major litigation that arose during the 2016 election and its implications for elections and voting rights law in the future. 

    Featured Speakers:
    Caroline Fredrickson, president, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
    Dawn Smalls, partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP; member, Board of Directors, ACS; Moderator
    Marc Elias, partner; Firmwide Chair, Political Law Practice; member, Firmwide Executive Committee, Perkins Coie LLP
    Michael Gottlieb, partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
     

     

    Click on the button above to begin playing the audio in a new window.

  • Media Call: Stephen Vladeck Discusses Supreme Court Cases Involving Federal Officials Engaging in Unconstitutional Conduct

    On Jan. 9 ACS hosted a phone call lead by one of the country's leaders in constitutional scholarship, Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, to discuss two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this Term, Ziglar v. Abbasi  (Jan. 18) and Hernandez v. Mesa (Feb. 21), where the key question at stake is: under what circumstances, if any, can an individual seek damages against federal officers who violate their constitutional rights? Professor Vladeck, who is co-counsel in Hernandez v. Mesa, will discuss “Bivens remedies,” the only mechanism available to plaintiffs who have had their constitutional rights violated and detail the ACS Issue Brief titled, “The Bivens Term: Why the Supreme Court should reinvigorate damages suits against federal officers,” which he authored.  

     

     

    Click on the button above to begin playing the audio in a new window.