Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Beckett Win and Gov. Murphy's EO 128; NCAA v. Alston
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Beckett Win and Gov. Murphy's EO 128; NCAA v. Alston
Beckett Win and Gov. Murphy's EO 128
Vec and Mark discuss the recent win for Beckett and religious liberty in Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser.
On December 16, 2020, Mayor Bowser signed an updated order that raised the cap to 250 persons so that the Archdiocese’s churches could open their doors to many more parishioners on Christmas Day. On March 25, 2021, a federal judge ruled against D.C.’s arbitrary caps, allowing the Basilica and other Catholic churches in the Archdiocese to welcome as many of their parishioners as could safely attend Easter services.
The two also discuss NCLA's recent legal action in Kravitz v. Murphy.
The lawsuit challenges Governor Murphy’s Executive Order No. 128 (EO 128), an unconstitutional mandate that unilaterally forces residential housing providers to use their tenants’ security deposits toward rent payments and criminalizes adherence to existing contracts. The order undermines property rights by suspending existing laws governing residential leasehold contracts and depriving property owners of security against property damage caused by tenants.
NCLA represents small property owners who have fallen victim to Governor Murphy’s unlawful order. The appellants in this case are ordinary people who are also struggling financially as a result of the pandemic. Without the contractually required security deposits, these housing providers are now forced to cover the costs of any tenant-caused property damage out of their own pockets rather than using the restitution guaranteed in the contracts they signed. In one instance, a landlord has been unable to track down former tenants who caused over $1,800 worth of damage to his rental property.
Read more about the case here: https://nclalegal.org/2021/04/eo-128-ncla-asks-nj-appellate-court-to-halt-governors-unlawful-interference-with-rental-contracts/
Show me the Money! NCAA v. Alston
Later in the episode, Vec and Mark review the oral argument made before the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston on whether college athletes can be paid.
The case before the court was filed as a class action against the NCAA and the major athletic conferences in 2014, arguing that the NCAA’s restrictions on eligibility and compensation violate federal antitrust laws by barring the athletes from receiving fair-market compensation for their labor. A federal district court in California ruled that the NCAA could restrict benefits that are unrelated to education (such as cash salaries), but it prohibited the NCAA from limiting education-related benefits (such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s review in NCAA v. Alston.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the circumstances of major-college athletics “paint a pretty stark picture” in which powerhouse programs bring in billions of dollars and pay enormous salaries to coaches, but the athletes themselves put in long hours of training, at significant cost to their studies, resulting in “shockingly low” graduation rates. The athletes, Alito concluded, are “recruited, they’re used up, and then they’re cast aside.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
View all episodes
By Administrative Static
5
1313 ratings
Beckett Win and Gov. Murphy's EO 128
Vec and Mark discuss the recent win for Beckett and religious liberty in Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser.
On December 16, 2020, Mayor Bowser signed an updated order that raised the cap to 250 persons so that the Archdiocese’s churches could open their doors to many more parishioners on Christmas Day. On March 25, 2021, a federal judge ruled against D.C.’s arbitrary caps, allowing the Basilica and other Catholic churches in the Archdiocese to welcome as many of their parishioners as could safely attend Easter services.
The two also discuss NCLA's recent legal action in Kravitz v. Murphy.
The lawsuit challenges Governor Murphy’s Executive Order No. 128 (EO 128), an unconstitutional mandate that unilaterally forces residential housing providers to use their tenants’ security deposits toward rent payments and criminalizes adherence to existing contracts. The order undermines property rights by suspending existing laws governing residential leasehold contracts and depriving property owners of security against property damage caused by tenants.
NCLA represents small property owners who have fallen victim to Governor Murphy’s unlawful order. The appellants in this case are ordinary people who are also struggling financially as a result of the pandemic. Without the contractually required security deposits, these housing providers are now forced to cover the costs of any tenant-caused property damage out of their own pockets rather than using the restitution guaranteed in the contracts they signed. In one instance, a landlord has been unable to track down former tenants who caused over $1,800 worth of damage to his rental property.
Read more about the case here: https://nclalegal.org/2021/04/eo-128-ncla-asks-nj-appellate-court-to-halt-governors-unlawful-interference-with-rental-contracts/
Show me the Money! NCAA v. Alston
Later in the episode, Vec and Mark review the oral argument made before the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston on whether college athletes can be paid.
The case before the court was filed as a class action against the NCAA and the major athletic conferences in 2014, arguing that the NCAA’s restrictions on eligibility and compensation violate federal antitrust laws by barring the athletes from receiving fair-market compensation for their labor. A federal district court in California ruled that the NCAA could restrict benefits that are unrelated to education (such as cash salaries), but it prohibited the NCAA from limiting education-related benefits (such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s review in NCAA v. Alston.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the circumstances of major-college athletics “paint a pretty stark picture” in which powerhouse programs bring in billions of dollars and pay enormous salaries to coaches, but the athletes themselves put in long hours of training, at significant cost to their studies, resulting in “shockingly low” graduation rates. The athletes, Alito concluded, are “recruited, they’re used up, and then they’re cast aside.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.