On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 5-3 opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma. The Court held that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. and the Court has the jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation

On February 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in Williams v. Reed. The Court held that state courts may not deny those claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds when a state court’s application of a state exhaustion requirement in effect immunizes state officials from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims challenging delays in the administrative process.
Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
Prof. Tyler Lindley, Associate Professor of Law, Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. The Court held that in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act the court, when awarding the "defendant’s profits" to the prevailing plaintiff, can award only profits ascribable to the "defendant" itself.

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.
Featuring:

Prof. Jake Linford, Loula Fuller & Dan Myers Professor and Associate Dean for Research, Florida State University College of Law

On February 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath. Because the government “provided” (at a minimum) a “portion” of the money applied for by transferring more than $100 million from the Treasury into the fund, the E-Rate reimbursement requests in this case are "claims" under the False Claims Act.

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
John Masslon, Counsel, Keller Postman LLC

On January 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in TikTok, Inc. v. Garland. The Court held that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act's provisions challenged by the petitioners do not violate the First Amendment rights of those petitioners.

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
Darpana Sheth Nunziata, Public Interest Litigator

On February 25, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 7-2 opinion in Lackey v. Stinnie. The Court held that a party that receives a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment on the merits before a case becomes moot is not a "prevailing party" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b)

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
William Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 6-3 opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.
Experts discuss and react to this 6-3 ruling.

Featuring:
Moderator: Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Insitute
Speakers:
Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation
Josh Divine, Solicitor General, Missouri Attorney General's Office
Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding mifepristone.
Join us to hear our panel break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.

Featuring:
Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its 6-2 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its 6-3 decision in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These decisions overturning Chevron v. NRDC (1984) may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.

Join us as we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.

Featuring:
Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School