The Role of White House Counsel

03/17/17 • 59 min

In recent weeks, there has been a flurry of editorials on the proper role of the White House Counsel, driven by criticism of White House Counsel Donald McGahn. After the rollout of President Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, some, like Jack Goldsmith, have written that McGahn should have worked with other agencies before the Order was released to prevent the chaos that ensued. -- But what is the proper role of the White House Counsel? Is it to coordinate inter-agency reaction? Should he or she provide legal support to the President first? Or is his or her real client the office of the presidency? Former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray and former Deputy White House Counsel Timothy Flanigan joined us to help answer these questions and many others. -- Featuring: Hon. Timothy E. Flanigan, Chief Legal & Compliance Officer, Corporate Secretary, Cancer Treatment Centers of America; Former Deputy White House Counsel to President George W. Bush and Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates; Former White House Counsel to President George H.W. Bush.

Previous Episode

Accelerating Financial Inclusion and Inclusive Growth

Today, approximately two billion people lack access to financial services. Because of their exclusive reliance on cash, these individuals operate in a “shadow economy,” are subject to greater criminal activity, higher transaction costs, and do not enjoy the same opportunities, benefits, and protections of traditional bank accounts and financial services. Last year, the World Bank and several organizations from the public and private sector announced a commitment to extend basic financial services to everyone by 2020. -- Shamina Singh, the President of Mastercard’s Center for Inclusive Growth, discussed the importance of financial inclusion to the U.S. and global economy and how governments, private sector leaders and philanthropic organizations have been focused on research and solutions to address these issues and foster greater inclusion. -- Featuring: Shamina Singh, President of the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth and Chair of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Next Episode

Courthouse Steps: Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin

On March 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Murr v. Wisconsin. This is a regulatory takings case which addresses the question: should two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels be combined, as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, for takings analysis purposes? -- In 1960 and 1963, the Murrs purchased two adjacent lots in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, each over an acre in size. In 1994 and 1995, the parents transferred the parcels to their children. These lots became nonconforming due to various setbacks imposed in the 1970s, but a grandfathering provision would have allowed independent and separate uses – but only if the lots were not owned by the same individuals. Seven years later, the children wanted to sell one of the two original lots and were denied permission to do so by the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment. The Murrs sued the state and county and claimed the county’s actions resulted in an uncompensated taking of their property. The trial court granted summary judgement to the state and county and the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed. -- James Burling, Vice President of Litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation and Misha Tseytlin, the Solicitor General for the State of Wisconsin, will join us to discuss this interesting case and offer their thoughts following oral argument. -- Featuring: James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation and Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General for the State of Wisconsin.