Month: June 2016

Posted on

SCOTUScast - Sturgeon v. Frost – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Sturgeon v. Frost. Sturgeon challenged a National Park Service (NPS) ban on the operation of hovercraft on the National River, part of which falls within the Yukon-Charley River National Preserve. The State of Alaska then intervened, challenging NPS’s authority to require its researchers to obtain a permit before engaging in studies of chum and sockeye salmon on the Alagnak River, part of which falls within the boundaries of the Katmai National Park and Preserve. Sturgeon and Alaska contended that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) precludes NPS from regulating activities on state-owned lands and navigable waters that fall within the boundaries of National Park System units in Alaska. The district court ruled in favor of the federal government, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment as to Sturgeon but ordered that Alaska’s case be dismissed for lack of standing. The question before the Supreme Court was whether ANILCA prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over state, native corporation, and private Alaska land physically located within the boundaries of the National Park System. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s reading of ANILCA. Taken as whole, the Court indicated, ANILCA “contemplates the possibility that all the land within the boundaries of conservation system units in Alaska may be treated differently from federally managed preservation areas across the country, and that ‘non-public’ lands within the boundaries of those units may be treated differently from ‘public’ lands within the unit.” -- To discuss the case, we have the Honorable Gale Norton, who served as the 48th U.S. Secretary of the Interior.
Posted on

SCOTUScast - Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz. Between 2003 and 2007 Husky International Electronics sold and delivered electronic device components worth more than $160,000 to Chrysalis Manufacturing Corp. Chrysalis, then under the financial control of Daniel Ritz, failed to pay for the goods and Ritz encouraged the transfer of funds from Chrysalis to various other companies. Ritz held substantial ownership stakes in these companies, which had not given reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Chrysalis funds. -- In May 2009, Husky sued Ritz in federal district court, seeking to hold him personally liable for Chrysalis’s debt. Ritz filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, and Husky then filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court alleging actual fraud, to preclude a discharge of Ritz’s debts. The bankruptcy court ruled that Husky had failed to prove actual fraud, however, and the district court affirmed that decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit likewise affirmed the lower court judgments, finding no record evidence of a false representation by the debtor, which the Fifth Circuit deemed a necessary predicate to establish actual fraud. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether the “actual fraud” bar to discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code applies only when the debtor has made a false representation, or whether the bar also applies when the debtor has deliberately obtained money through a fraudulent-transfer scheme that was actually intended to cheat a creditor. -- By a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the term "actual fraud" in Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code encompasses fraudulent conveyance schemes, even when those schemes do not involve a false representation. The majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is a visiting scholar at Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law.
Posted on

The Gist - Ghost Bluster

On The Gist, 2015 MacArthur fellow Matthew Desmond talks about moving into a trailer park to document life in poverty and what he calls an eviction epidemic. Desmond is the author of Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. For the Spiel, revisiting Ghostbusters—that is, revisiting the movie that’s revisiting Ghostbusters. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Posted on

SCOTUScast - Sheriff v. Gillie – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Sheriff v. Gillie. This case involves litigation between debtors to Ohio institutions and special counsel who sought to collect money owed to the institutions. Two questions were before the Supreme Court: (1) Do special counsel appointed by Ohio’s Attorney General qualify as “state officers” exempt from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (FDCPA) governance? (2) Is special counsel’s use of the Attorney General’s letterhead a false or misleading representation proscribed by FDCPA §1692e? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that special counsel were independent contractors who could not claim an FDCPA exemption and remanded the case for trial on the deceptiveness issue. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ginsburg explained that--even assuming for the sake of argument special counsel do not rank as “state officers”--their use of the Attorney General’s letterhead did not offend §1692e. Not fairly described as “false” or “misleading,” the use of the letterhead accurately conveyed that special counsel, in seeking to collect debts owed to the State, do so on behalf of, and as instructed by the Attorney General. -- To discuss the case, we have Jennifer L. Mascott, who is an Olin/Searle Fellow in Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Posted on

New Books in Native American Studies - Andrew Woolford, “This Benevolent Experiment” (U of Nebraska Press, 2015)

I grew up in Michigan, in the United States, where I was surrounded by places named with Native American names. I drove to Saginaw to play in basketball tournaments and to Pontiac to watch an NBA team play. Now in Kansas, I live near towns called Kiowa and Cherokee. But for much of my life, despite my profession as an historian, names like these were just background noise in the everyday reality of my life, not reminders of the fact that Native Americans have lived in and with the presence of settlers for centuries.

Andrew Woolford has done much to help me recognize and understand this. Woolford is one of the preeminent scholars on the relationship between “natives” and settlers in the United States and Canada. He is also one of the most thoughtful voices in considering whether this relationship should be called genocidal.

In my discussion with him, we tried to get at the essence of his ideas by looking at three of his works. We begin with the volume of essays he co-edited with Alexander Hinton and Jeff Benvenuto, titled Colonial Genocide in Indigenous North America. The book collects the contributions of a variety of authors researching the issue. The essays generally offer focused examinations of specific issues of events. But the editors also offer valuable reflections on what we know and don’t know about the subject. It’s an outstanding resource for people interested in the question broadly. We then move on to Woolford’s own work, titled This Benevolent Experiment:Indigenous Boarding Schools, Genocide, and Redress in Canada and the United States (University of Nebraska Press, 2015).The book is a wonderful examination of the Indigenous school systems in Canada and the United States in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Woolford extracts from his research a wonderful new metaphor to illustrate the way in which genocide worked in North America, one that has much broader utility in the field. And he offers a careful, well-reasoned explanation for why he thinks genocide is indeed the most appropriate term for the cultural and physical violent that characterized the period. Both books are excellent.

Finally, while we didn’t have much time to address it specifically, Woolford edited a recent special edition of the Journal of Genocide Research focusing on the topic. It’s also a rich source of information and insight.

Put together, the three works offer perhaps the best way into the growing field of genocide studies in North America.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies