As businesses and schools open after months of state-imposed lockdowns, the COVID-19 relief bill in Congress contains a proposal to provide a liability shield to institutions who follow federal guidelines but still find themselves the target of lawsuits. Meanwhile, state legislatures are considering separate proposals. Our panel of experts discuss the post-COVID-19 litigation landscape, the feasibility of liability shields, and what they could mean for businesses, entrepreneurs, school administrators, and consumers who are easing back into life as the nation recovers from the economic slow-down.
Judicial appointments promise to be a key issue in this fall's presidential and Senate elections. Our panel of legal experts will examine the likely impact of a Trump or Biden victory, as well as control of the Senate, on the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. They will look at hsow the judges isue will impact the election. They'll discuss what President Trump's record of judicial appointments tells us about a second term. Similarly, what do Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris's records tell us about the kind of judicial nominees we'd see in a Biden Administration? And will Democrats attempt to pack the Supreme Court if they control Congress and the presidency?
On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Federal Trade Commission's win in the agency's case accusing Qualcomm of violating antitrust law through its licensing practices for standard-essential patents covering cellular technology. Our speakers will weigh in on this ruling and explore the history, arguments, and implications for the current debate over antitrust enforcement and the competitive process in high-tech markets.
The Trump Resistance claims the President is guilty of many crimes, regularly abuses his power, and is a threat to democracy. To bolster their case and support their resistance, the President's critics have invented a new body of "Trump Law," rewriting legal norms, standards and definitions across the legal landscape – spanning impeachment, obstruction of justice, "collusion," executive privilege, management of the executive branch, national injunctions, foreign relations, and more. The Committee for Justice and National Review Institute co-host a panel of legal experts to analyze the many areas of law affected by this effort, discuss the threat it poses to the rule of law, and speculate on the long-term impact.
America’s technology companies have created huge gains for consumers, developing networks and products that connect the world in ways that were inconceivable just 20 years ago. Yet this progress has not been without its critics. The dominance of large platforms has led to concerns about the harmful effects of lock-in and path dependency, with many arguing the technology sector is unique and requires new approaches to antitrust policy. In particular, it is argued that the consumer welfare standard that guides American antitrust policy is ineffective for regulating Big Tech. Yet with the lack of demonstrable consumer harm, would increased government interventions improve the market?
In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court struck down the CFPB’s leadership structure under a single director that the President cannot remove except for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. But the justices stopped there, leaving the bureau in place, and declined to revisit Humphrey’s Executor more broadly. Nonetheless, the Court’s decision was a victory for separation of powers principles. Our panel of legal and regulatory experts will discuss the implications of the opinion for independent agencies and removal power, as well as what the decision means for consumers.
The Supreme Court interpreted Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination in employment to encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, relied heavily on the text of the 1964 statute. Too heavily – to the exclusion of legislative intent – some critics say. Our panel of Supreme Court and civil rights experts will discuss whether the Court's opinion was a work of principled textualism or an example of judicial activism.