Log in

goodpods headphones icon

To access all our features

Open the Goodpods app
Close icon
ACS Podcast - Discussion of Supreme Court Cases Involving Federal Officials Engaging in Unconstitutional Conduct

Discussion of Supreme Court Cases Involving Federal Officials Engaging in Unconstitutional Conduct

05/04/18 • 28 min

ACS Podcast
On Jan. 9 ACS hosted a phone call lead by one of the country's leaders in constitutional scholarship, Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, to discuss two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this Term, Ziglar v. Abbasi (Jan. 18) and Hernandez v. Mesa (Feb. 21), where the key question at stake is: under what circumstances, if any, can an individual seek damages against federal officers who violate their constitutional rights? Professor Vladeck, who is co-counsel in Hernandez v. Mesa, will discuss “Bivens remedies,” the only mechanism available to plaintiffs who have had their constitutional rights violated and detail the ACS Issue Brief titled, “The Bivens Term: Why the Supreme Court should reinvigorate damages suits against federal officers,” which he authored.
plus icon
bookmark
On Jan. 9 ACS hosted a phone call lead by one of the country's leaders in constitutional scholarship, Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, to discuss two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this Term, Ziglar v. Abbasi (Jan. 18) and Hernandez v. Mesa (Feb. 21), where the key question at stake is: under what circumstances, if any, can an individual seek damages against federal officers who violate their constitutional rights? Professor Vladeck, who is co-counsel in Hernandez v. Mesa, will discuss “Bivens remedies,” the only mechanism available to plaintiffs who have had their constitutional rights violated and detail the ACS Issue Brief titled, “The Bivens Term: Why the Supreme Court should reinvigorate damages suits against federal officers,” which he authored.

Previous Episode

undefined - The Calm After the Voting Rights Storm?

The Calm After the Voting Rights Storm?

The last decade has seen a steady rise in restrictions on the right to vote, with cuts to early voting, limitations on absentee voting, polling place closures, voter ID laws and changes to voter registration becoming routine in legislatures across the country. The 2016 presidential election, the first in over 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, was also pervaded with calls for “poll watchers” to ensure “ballot integrity” and to protect against voter fraud. The election saw an unprecedented stream of litigation challenging laws and procedures regarding the right to vote. On Jan. 12, 2017 the American Constitution Society hosted a conference call featuring attorneys behind several of these lawsuits. The attorneys provided an update and in-depth discussion of the major litigation that arose during the 2016 election and its implications for elections and voting rights law in the future. Featured Speakers: Caroline Fredrickson, president, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Dawn Smalls, partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP; member, Board of Directors, ACS; Moderator Marc Elias, partner; Firmwide Chair, Political Law Practice; member, Firmwide Executive Committee, Perkins Coie LLP Michael Gottlieb, partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Next Episode

undefined - Is America Becoming a Plutocracy?

Is America Becoming a Plutocracy?

On Dec. 19 ACS hosted a phone call lead by two leaders in constitutional scholarship, William E. Forbath, associate dean for research and Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Law at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and Richard W. Painter, S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Law School; associate counsel to President George W. Bush, to discuss the implications of electing an international business tycoon as president of the United States, a President-elect who is assembling what could be the richest administration in history. Professors Forbath and Painter considered the following questions: What conflicts of interest will President-elect Trump likely have when he is sworn into office next month? Will he be in violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause or other laws and ethical rules? And what do his recent cabinet picks means for our democracy? Are we headed for plutocracy?

Episode Comments

Generate a badge

Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode

Select type & size
Open dropdown icon
share badge image

<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/acs-podcast-3733/discussion-of-supreme-court-cases-involving-federal-officials-engaging-165748"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to discussion of supreme court cases involving federal officials engaging in unconstitutional conduct on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>

Copy