エピソード

  • Proclaiming Liberty with Tim Sandefur

    Proclaiming Liberty with Tim Sandefur
    2026/07/01
    As America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Proclaiming Liberty by Timothy Sandefur revisits the revolutionary year of 1776 through the minds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two men whose words and ideas gave birth to modern liberty. Sandefur’s engaging narrative brings to life the “American mind” as those extraordinary Founders sought to express it—their arguments, ideals, and enduring beliefs in natural rights and self-government.Sweeping from the English Civil War and the writings of Locke and Montesquieu to the colonial battles over the Stamp and Townshend Acts and the battlefields of Massachusetts and Virginia, Sandefur’s narrative shows how the Declaration distilled centuries of debate about freedom, law, and human nature into one of history’s most enduring statements on justice. Blending biography, political thought, and legal history—from Sir Edward Coke and Edmund Burke to Tacitus and Frederick Douglass—Proclaiming Liberty traces the Declaration’s legacy through the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and the modern age, documenting how its principles have continued to challenge tyranny, refute relativism, and inspire movements for justice.Join us for this discussion between Prof. Lee Strang and Timothy Sandefur as they reflect on the Declaration's intellectual pedigree and enduring relevance for all who love freedom.
    Featuring:

    Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
    Prof. Lee J. Strang, Executive Director, Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society, The Ohio State University
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間
  • From the Courthouse Steps: Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan

    From the Courthouse Steps: Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan
    2026/07/02
    In Pung v. Isabella County, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims under the Takings Clause and Excessive Fines Clause that the Constitution required compensation based on the property’s fair-market value, holding instead that surplus auction proceeds are the proper measure when the tax sale is fairly conducted. The decision preserves traditional tax-sale systems while leaving room for future challenges to unfair foreclosure procedures.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and its impact.
    Featuring:

    Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
    Deborah J. La Fetra, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
    続きを読む 一部表示
    31 分
  • From the Courthouse Steps: Mullin v. Doe

    From the Courthouse Steps: Mullin v. Doe
    2026/07/06
    In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, reversing lower-court orders that had halted the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges to DHS’s TPS termination decisions. It also concluded that the Haitian plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim was unlikely to succeed, reasoning that the administration’s across-the-board opposition to TPS as previously implemented supplied a strong race-neutral explanation for the termination.
    Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and the case's potential impact.
    Featuring:

    Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
    James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
    続きを読む 一部表示
    31 分
  • From the Courthouse Steps: Watson v. Republican National Committee

    From the Courthouse Steps: Watson v. Republican National Committee
    2026/07/08
    In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later. Although those statutes set the day for the “election,” the majority read "election" to mean the expression of the electorate’s choice, which occurs when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Watson may mean for absentee voting, state election rules, and future election-law litigation.
    Featuring:

    Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections Project
    Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC
    続きを読む 一部表示
    30 分
  • From the Courthouse Steps: Wolford v. Lopez

    From the Courthouse Steps: Wolford v. Lopez
    2026/07/08
    In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.
    Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.
    Featuring:

    Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
    John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
    続きを読む 一部表示
    32 分
  • From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara

    From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara
    2026/07/09
    In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions.Featuring:Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralProf. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School
    続きを読む 一部表示
    46 分
  • From the Courthouse Steps: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

    From the Courthouse Steps: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
    2026/07/10
    In the consolidated cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states or schools from determining sports eligibility based on biological sex. Join us for a Courthouse Steps webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what it may mean for Title IX, equal protection doctrine, school athletics, and future litigation over sex-based classifications.
    Featuring:

    Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
    Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education
    続きを読む 一部表示
    32 分
  • Litigation Finance: Access to Justice, Lawfare, and Foreign Influence

    Litigation Finance: Access to Justice, Lawfare, and Foreign Influence
    2026/07/13
    Third-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question?

    Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation.

    Featuring:


    Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
    Gene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal Foundation
    Phil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
    [Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC
    続きを読む 一部表示
    55 分