In the Public Interest

In the run up to the 2024 presidential election, the concern with outside interference in our elections and the political debate surrounding them has never been higher. In this environment, we thought it would be a good time to re-release a podcast episode from season one on deepfakes and disinformation, which was originally released in March of 2021. Please listen to former podcast co-host and current candidate for Denver District Attorney John Walsh, Partner Jason Chipman, former counsel Matthew Ferraro, and Nina Schick, who discuss the phenomenon of deepfakes and the implications they have on society as a whole.

When it comes to protecting the nation’s public lands, the work of the Department of the Interior (DOI) is crucial and all-encompassing. The Department oversees everything from environmental conservation efforts to energy regulation to strengthening relationships with Native American and other indigenous tribes. In the fourth season finale of In the Public Interest, co-host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with WilmerHale Partner Tommy Beaudreau, the current co-chair of the firm’s Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources and Native American Law Practices. Beaudreau’s career spans nearly a decade of experience in public service, serving in two presidential administrations in various positions within the DOI. Most recently, he was Deputy Secretary of the Interior in the Biden Administration under Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American Cabinet secretary in American history.

Beaudreau shares how his experience growing up in Alaska and his connection with his home state drove his passion to serve in the public sector. He tells Ellsworth about the leadership of Secretary Haaland, and how she has made strides to build connections with tribal nations and help them heal from a traumatic history of colonization. The two also discuss various challenges he faced during his time in the Department, from the stabilization of the Colorado River to working with tribes and other stakeholders to enforce the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

As governments globally resort to more muscular uses of economic tools, such as sanctions and export controls for national security and foreign policy purposes, international trade has become increasingly complex. In this episode of In the Public Interest, podcast co-host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with WilmerHale Partner Neena Shenai, a leading economic sanctions and export controls attorney. Shenai holds over 20 years of experience in global cross-border activities and policy, and has served in numerous high-ranking legal and advisory positions in both the private and public sector.

Ellsworth and Shenai discuss the current state of the trade world and the impact of geopolitics, the upcoming US election, and other trends in practicing trade law and advising on risks and opportunities in global business. They also touch on Shenai’s diverse range of experiences that have contributed to her specialized practice, including what drew her to the field of international trade. In addition, Shenai shares her experiences as a woman in the legal industry and as mentor to up-and-coming legal professionals, and gives advice to those who are just beginning their careers.

In this episode, co-host Felicia Ellsworth and Counsel Ryan Chabot discuss United States v. Rahimi, a recent decision that concerns the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), a statute which prohibits individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Key foundational support for Rahimi was established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 Supreme Court decision which enacted a test for Second Amendment challenges. The final decision in Rahimi, along with Bruen, provides the courts with a framework for determining what gun control laws are constitutional, and stands as a significant decision for ongoing Second Amendment litigation.

Ellsworth and Chabot dive into the details of both Bruen and Rahimi, with Chabot explaining the historical intricacies of interpreting and litigating Second Amendment cases. He also speaks to the amicus brief he filed with Partner Alan Schoenfeld and Associate Josh Feinzig on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control and against gun violence. The organization was in support of the federal government’s position that the statute at issue is constitutional and saw a sweeping victory in its favor in the Court’s final ruling.

This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year’s term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, Department of State v. Muñoz and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson and Partner Kelly Dunbar discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the recent decision that overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In the initial 1984 decision, the Court determined that when an agency is tasked with enforcing an ambiguous statute with more than one reasonable interpretation, a court reviewing the agency’s action must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute. This latest decision requires courts to make those interpretations instead, with potentially far-reaching effects on agencies across the country.

Dawson and Dunbar share the original intent of Chevron and how it came to form a bedrock of administrative law. Dunbar also explains why the Court found it necessary to overturn the decision after 40 years and the unanswered questions left in the wake of the case. Dawson also questions the impact the case will have on both the public and private sector, and specifically if Congress will shift how it legislates in order to avoid potential ambiguity.

This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year’s term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP,  Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy and Department of State v. Muñoz.

In this episode of In the Public Interest, co-host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by WilmerHale Partner Lee Greenfield to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of State v. Muñoz. The case concerns the due process rights of US citizens if their non-citizen spouses are denied entrance to the country and what impact this has on the right to marriage.

Ellsworth and Greenfield cover the origins of the case and how it evolved from a lawsuit pertaining to the Fifth Amendment rights of an individual plaintiff, Sandra Muñoz, into a larger conversation around the right to marriage as defined in cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges. Greenfield lends an added perspective from his direct involvement with the case, explaining how he came to file an amicus brief on behalf of 35 members of Congress in support of Muñoz.

This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year’s term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy.

In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson is joined by Noah Rosenblum, an assistant professor of law at NYU and former WilmerHale summer associate, to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The case concerns whether the SEC has the authority to seek civil penalties against an individual before an administrative law judge rather than before an Article III-appointed judge and a jury of the individual’s peers. As a result of the Court’s decision, the SEC may no longer rely on its administrative forum to seek civil penalties for alleged violations of securities laws.

Dawson and Rosenblum give a timeline of events that led up to the Supreme Court case, with Rosenblum breaking down how the majority and dissenting opinions diverge. Leveraging his background as a legal historian, Rosenblum provides historical context and explains how applying a traditional Constitutional interpretation to the case increases its complexity. Dawson and Rosenblum also discuss the long-term impact this case could have, highlighting how the final ruling leaves many unanswered questions that could pose challenges in interpreting future decisions.

This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year’s term looked at the decisions in Cantero v. Bank of America and Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue its second annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, co-host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by Deputy Director for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and former WilmerHale Litigation Counsel Adriel Cepeda Derieux to discuss the recent decision in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. This decision concerns the constitutionality of South Carolina’s new congressional map and analyzes whether race was the predominant factor that motivated the state legislature’s decision to move voters within or without a particular district.

Ellsworth and Cepeda Derieux share background on the case and how South Carolina specifically demonstrated hallmarks of racial gerrymandering. They also discuss how the Supreme Court’s decision could make it difficult going forward to successfully prosecute cases of gerrymandering in regions with high rates of racial polarization. Cepeda Derieux also gives his thoughts on the current state of voting rights and what other developments we could expect to see on the topic of redistricting from the Supreme Court.

In the Public Interest is excited to present its second annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson is joined by WilmerHale Senior Counsel Julie Williams, former Chief Counsel and First Senior Deputy Comptroller at Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, to discuss the recent decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, which involves the preemption of state consumer protection laws by the National Banking Act. Dawson and Williams discuss the factual and legal background of the case, the different standards of preemption applied by the lower courts and the Supreme Court, the implications of the decision for the banking industry and consumers, and the possible next steps in the litigation.

In this episode of In the Public Interest, podcast co-host Michael Dawson sits down with WilmerHale Partner Ariel Soiffer to discuss the current artificial intelligence (AI) landscape. Ariel shares his perspective after working for over 20 years in AI-related fields and advising clients on technology-related transactions.

Together, Ariel and Michael break down the history of AI, the progression of its capabilities and the impact these enhancements are having on transactional law. They discuss key legal developments and corporate governance challenges surrounding AI, and how lawyers, regulators and businesses can navigate them strategically. Ariel also shares the benefits and potential risks of AI, and what in-house counsel needs to know when considering or implementing new AI technology.