Show Notes
Professor Squitieri debates the merits of upcoming tariff litigation with John J. Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, at an event hosted by the Georgetown Law Federalist Society.
Learn more about SPI: https://spi.law.edu/
A note from the Georgetown Law Federalist Society: The Georgetown Law Federalist Society's Daniel Webster Debate Series covers a broad array of legal topics throughout the year to encourage nuanced civil discourse and the pursuit of truth. Named after Daniel Webster, "The Great Expounder and Defender of the Constitution," these debates bring distinguished judges, scholars, and practitioners to Georgetown Law every other Wednesday night. Each debate is live streamed by the Georgetown Law Federalist Society on its YouTube page. The chapter is also active on Instagram. Inquiries about the debate series or the chapter can be directed to [email protected]
Credit to C-SPAN and C-SPAN 3 for the audio clips used in the introduction of this podcast episode.
More from The Separation of Powers
Prof. Squitieri discusses Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the court-congress relationship, with Professor Abbe Gluck. Learn more about SPI:https://spi.law.edu. Credit to C-SPAN and C-SPAN 3 for the audio clips used in the introduction of this podcast episode.
Professor Squitieri discusses substantive canons of interpretation (including whether they exist!) with Professor Charles Capps.
Professor Squitieri discusses Skidmore v. Swift & Co., including its status after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, with Professor Kristin Hickman.
Professor Squitieri discusses his forthcoming article, "Congress in the Mouth of a Lawyer," on the Gray Matters Podcast. A link to the article can be found at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6540038 Learn more about SPI: https://spi.law.edu Credit to C-SPAN and C-SPAN 3 for the audio clips used in the introduction of this podcast episode.
Professor Squitieri discusses Professor Tara Leigh Grove's new paper, which considers the Supreme Court's power to impose methods of interpretation.