Talks with Authors: Natural Property Rights: An Introduction

FedSoc Forums

#Supreme Court #News #Politics #Federalist Society

47:59

Ep. 42 - RevPar Problems, Real Talk: When Memes Meet Metrics with Calvin Tilokee How do revenue managers really think? What makes hotel rates spike during Taylor Swift concerts—or Bigfoot conventions? And why do memes about ADR hit harder than your star report? In this episode of Tickets to Travel: The Business of Travel Experiences , we sit down with Calvin Tilokee of RevPAR Media, the sharp mind behind the viral @RevPARProblems Instagram account. Calvin pulls back the curtain on hotel pricing strategy, compression events, influencer marketing, and what event producers often get wrong when pitching to hotels. Whether you’re trying to block rooms for a major festival, fill your hotel over a soft week, or just want to understand the secret language of revenue managers, this episode is packed with insight and humor. This episode is a must-listen for hotel sales and revenue teams, meeting and event planners, festival promoters, and hospitality marketers. Follow @RevPARProblems on Instagram for daily hotel truths and satire. And subscribe now to hear why Calvin says: “We don’t need your group when we’re already full. Call us the week after Christmas.” For more insider conversations at the intersection of travel, ticketing, and live experiences, follow us on all socials @Tix2TravelPod and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. If you haven’t listened yet, head to www.tttpod.com to catch up on past episodes.…

about a year ago 1:02:06

MP3•Episode home

Eric Claeys’ new publication, Natural Property Rights, presents a novel theory of property based on individual, pre-political rights. The book argues that a just system of property protects people's rights to use resources and also orders those rights consistent with natural law and the public welfare. Drawing on influential property theorists such as Grotius, Locke, Blackstone, and early American statesmen and judges, as well as recent work in normative and analytical philosophy, the book shows how natural rights guide political and legal reasoning about property law. It examines how natural rights justify the most familiar institutions in property, including public property, ownership, the system of estates and future interests, leases, servitudes, mortgages, police regulation, and eminent domain. Thought-provoking and comprehensive, the book challenges leading contemporary justifications for property and shows how property both secures individual freedom and serves the common good.
Join this Talks with Authors program to discuss all this and more!
Featuring:
Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia
--
To register, click the link above.

1033 episodes

Talks with Authors: Natural Property Rights: An Introduction

FedSoc Forums

27 subscribers

published about a year ago

MP3•Episode home

1033 episodes

#Supreme Court #News #Politics #Federalist Society

All episodes

FedSoc Forums

1
AI Training vs. Copyright Law: Updates from the Copyright Office and the Courts 1:02:43

5 hours ago1:02:43

1:02:43

Whether AI training and generation is a fair use under copyright law puts two important American business sectors in opposition, and each looks to the various branches of the federal government for answers. Fundamentally, essentially all training of AI models involves copying of copyrighted materials, and many outputs from AI systems also may be substantially similar to copyrighted material and thus infringing if they are not fair uses. On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives. Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue. Featuring: Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge Regan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media Alliance Moderator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton 45:31

5 hours ago45:31

45:31

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerned Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older. Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025. On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech. Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be. Featuring: Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization 47:33

1 day ago47:33

47:33

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches." Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II. Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case. Featuring: Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC (Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP…

FedSoc Forums

1
20 Years Later: Kelo v. City of New London 59:59

1 day ago59:59

59:59

In June of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when it condemned private residential lots and transferred them to commercial developers to promote local economic development as part of a comprehensive municipal development plan. Kelo was certainly a landmark decision and, twenty years later, its impact is still felt and merits further consideration. Join our panel as it discusses Kelo’s legacy, the nature of “public use,” and the judiciary’s current and future relationship with eminent domain. Featuring: Prof. Peter Byrne, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law; Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program; Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Resource Center, Georgetown Law Center Wesley W. Horton, Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP Tim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Moderator: Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University -- To register, click the link above.…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency 56:02

1 day ago56:02

56:02

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh. Featuring: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP Moderator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP -- To register, click the link above.…

FedSoc Forums

1
Does "Board Law" Matter after Loper Bright? 1:01:49

2 days ago1:01:49

1:01:49

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn’t want to hear about “Board law.” The judges, he said, could read the statute for themselves. That statement was controversial and thought-provoking. After last term’s blockbuster decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts are no longer supposed to defer to administrative agencies on legal questions. So does that mean Board law is dead? Or is the issue more complicated? Join our panelists as we dissect the issue. Featuring: Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C. (Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: Mahmoud v. Taylor 52:06

2 days ago52:06

52:06

Mahmoud v. Taylor concerns the question of whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs. In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs. Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Join us for a breakdown of this decision and its implications. Featuring: Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law…

FedSoc Forums

1
Litigation Update: Legal Developments Surrounding Tithing and Religious Donations 1:01:38

7 days ago1:01:38

1:01:38

In recent years, a flurry of lawsuits has been launched nationwide against religious organizations, raising fraud and other claims related to tithing and church donations. These challenges generally argue that church leaders falsely claimed they would only put donations to one use, but instead put them to another. These cases, which have been heard in the 9th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits, as well as multi-district litigation in federal court in Utah, raise church autonomy issues, such as the extent to which religious leaders can determine how to use donations made to the organization. Additionally, at least one of these cases raises the procedural question of whether church autonomy should be treated more like immunity from suit, and allow for interlocutory appeals on church autonomy matters. On this FedSoc forum, Daniel Blomberg and Dr. James C. Phillips will run through several of these cases, discussing these and related issues. Featuring: Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Moderator) Dr. James C. Phillips, Associate Professor & Director, Constitutional Government Initiative, Wheatley Institute, Brigham Young University…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic 37:23

9 days ago37:23

37:23

in July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to end the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case asked whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. On June 26, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 in favor of South Carolina, affirming the state's right to exclude abortion providers from its Medicaid program. Tune in to this Courthouse Steps podcast as we break down the case and its recent decision. Featuring: John J. Bursch, Senior Counsel and VP, Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Moderator: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC and Oklahoma v. EPA 41:55

13 days ago41:55

41:55

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court released its decisions for two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). Decided 7-2 and 8-0, respectively, the outcome of these cases hinged on the Court’s interpretation of the CAA’s unique venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id. In Calumet, the Court ruled 7-2 that the “EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.” Similarly, in Oklahoma, the Court ruled 8-0 that “EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah state implementation plans are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional court of appeals.” Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer a breakdown of these decisions. Featuring: James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Moderator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney -- To register, click the link above.…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: United States v. Skrmetti 49:19

19 days ago49:19

49:19

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex. In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky. On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Featuring: Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute…

FedSoc Forums

1
Checks and Balances: Deregulation Based on Supreme Court Rulings 1:05:05

21 days ago1:05:05

1:05:05

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.” This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner. Featuring: John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for Impact Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: Kousisis v. United States 38:20

21 days ago38:20

38:20

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud. Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case. Featuring: Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein…

FedSoc Forums

1
Courthouse Steps Decision: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos 46:05

21 days ago46:05

46:05

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence. The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case. Featuring: Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP…

FedSoc Forums

1
Proxy Plumbing - A Primer for the Coming Policy Debate 55:50

21 days ago55:50