Term Talk

Bankruptcy. Non-uniformity. Non-debtor Release. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s decision to not reimburse claimants for bounded non-uniformities in Hammons as well as the Court’s rejection of the release of claims against third-party non-debtors without claimant consent in Purdue Pharma.

Participants. Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas Austin, School of Law; Melissa Jacoby, Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and Beth Wiggins, Director of Research at the Federal Judicial Center.

Bankruptcy. Non-uniformity. Non-debtor Release. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s decision to not reimburse claimants for bounded non-uniformities in Hammons as well as the Court’s rejection of the release of claims against third-party non-debtors without claimant consent in Purdue Pharma.

Participants. Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas Austin, School of Law; Melissa Jacoby, Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and Beth Wiggins, Director of Research at the Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Sixth Amendment. Expert Testimony. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s guidelines for determining when reports prepared by analysts are testimonial in Smith v. Arizona, and in Diaz v. United States, the limitations of FRE 704(b) on expert testimony about the defendant’s mental when an essential element of the charge.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Sixth Amendment. Expert Testimony. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s guidelines for determining when reports prepared by analysts are testimonial in Smith v. Arizona, and in Diaz v. United States, the limitations of FRE 704(b) on expert testimony about the defendant’s mental when an essential element of the charge.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Fifth and Sixth Amendments. First Step Act. ACCA. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s determination in Erlinger v. United States that the existence of a prior offense is a jury question, and the requirements for safety-valve relief under the First Step Act in Pulsifer v. United States.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Fifth and Sixth Amendments. First Step Act. ACCA. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s determination in Erlinger v. United States that the existence of a prior offense is a jury question, and the requirements for safety-valve relief under the First Step Act in Pulsifer v. United States.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Eighth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Experts discuss the Court’s interpretation of status and conduct in the context of ordinances that punish sleeping in public in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, and the absolute bar to retrial of acquittals, even when there are inconsistent verdicts, in McElrath v. Georgia.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Eighth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Experts discuss the Court’s interpretation of status and conduct in the context of ordinances that punish sleeping in public in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, and the absolute bar to retrial of acquittals, even when there are inconsistent verdicts, in McElrath v. Georgia.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Malicious-prosecution. § 1983. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s determination that probable cause for one charge does not insulate other charges from a §1983 malicious-prosecution claim.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law. Malicious-prosecution. § 1983. Experts discuss the Supreme Court’s determination that probable cause for one charge does not insulate other charges from a §1983 malicious-prosecution claim.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor, UC Law, San Francisco; and Francesca Williams, Executive Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

The nation's top legal scholars discuss what federal judges need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court's most impactful decisions.