Скачать с ютуб [LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting: The October Docket in 90 Minutes or Less в хорошем качестве

[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting: The October Docket in 90 Minutes or Less

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. • Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. • Williams v. Washington, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. • Garland v. VanDerStok, (October 8) -Second Amendment; Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act. • Lackey v. Stinnie, (October 8) -Civil Procedure; (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988. • Glossip v. Oklahoma, (October 9) -Criminal Law; (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment. • Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, (October 15), -Immigration; Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria. • Medical Marijuana v. Horn, October 15 -Criminal Law; Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. • City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (October 16) -Environmental Law & Regulation; Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform. • Bufkin v. McDonough, (October 16) -Vetrans Affairs; Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule. Featuring: • James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation • John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation • Matthew Rice, Solicitor General, Tennessee Attorney General's Office • Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation • (Moderator) Kirby T. West, Attorney, Institute of Justice Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-t... * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.