On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

19th Annual Supreme Court Review: October 2016 Term

Released on: Aug. 14, 2017
Running Time: 06:15:56

The United States Supreme Court this term confronted a very wide range of important constitutional issues.  The issues ranged from individual rights under the First Amendment free speech and religion clauses, voting rights and the Fourth Amendment, excessive force litigation, takings claims, and immigration and naturalization, to arbitration and insider trading.  For most of the term the Court functioned with eight justices.  However, late in the term the Senate confirmed the President’s nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to fill the ninth seat left vacant by the death last term of Justice Antonin Scalia.   

In PLI’s 19th Annual Supreme Court Review program, an extraordinary faculty representing a range of constitutional views and perspectives, including a law school dean, law professors, a circuit court judge, a Supreme Court journalist, constitutional scholars, and civil rights experts, will analyze the leading U.S. Supreme Court decisions rendered during the October 2016 Term.  The decisions will be analyzed for their doctrinal, precedential and, where appropriate, litigation significance. 

You will learn: 

  • Overview of the October 2016 Term: the major decisions, trends, and voting patterns of the Justices, and the projected impact of Justice Gorsuch
  • Freedom of speech, religion, and voting rights
  • Presidential and Congressional power over immigration and naturalization
  • Criminal procedure and claims against law enforcement officers
  • Business interests, civil litigation, and arbitration

The program is a must for anyone interested in the development of constitutional law and the United States Supreme Court.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:15:56]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Welcome and Introduction* [00:01:43]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Overview of the Supreme Court October 2016 Term [01:33:50]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Joan Biskupic, Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Professor Burt Neuborne, Professor Theodore M. Shaw, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court October 2016 Term: Freedom of Speech and Religion; Voting Rights [01:09:22]
    Professor Burt Neuborne, Professor Theodore M. Shaw, Joan Biskupic, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Professor Leon Friedman, Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court October 2016 Term: Immigration and Naturalization [00:49:12]
    Professor Michael C. Dorf, Joan Biskupic, Professor Leon Friedman, Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta, Professor Burt Neuborne, Professor Theodore M. Shaw, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court October 2016 Term: Criminal Procedure and Actions Against Law Enforcement Officers [01:29:57]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Sherry F. Colb, Martin A. Schwartz, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Professor Leon Friedman, Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta, Professor Theodore M. Shaw
  • Supreme Court October 2016 Term: Business Interests and Civil Litigation [01:11:52]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Professor Leon Friedman, Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta, Professor Theodore M. Shaw, Martin A. Schwartz

Presentation Material


  • 19th Annual Supreme Court Review: October 2016 Term
  • Supreme Court Review: October 2016 Term
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
  • Waiting for Gorsuch: October 2016 Term
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
  • Supreme Court Decisions, 2016-17 Term
    Professor Leon Friedman
  • The Educational Function of Kabuki Confirmation Hearings
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Separation of Powers Better Justifies SCOTUS Nominee Reticence Than Judicial Impartiality Does
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Judge Gorsuch’s Misguided Quest to End Judicial Deference to Administrative Agencies
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Making Sense of the SCOTUS Per Curiam in Arkansas SSM Birth Certificate Case
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Supreme Court Review
    Professor Theodore M. Shaw
  • Syllabus: Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
  • Credit Cards and the Disturbingly Widening Gyre of Free Speech
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Syllabus: Packingham v. North Carolina
  • Syllabus: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
  • Syllabus: Matal v. Tam
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg Versus Colin Kaepernick
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • The Status of the Hearer in Mr. Madison’s Neighborhood
    Professor Burt Neuborne
  • Supreme Court Review: Elections, Redistricting, and Voting Rights
    Professor Theodore M. Shaw
  • Syllabus: Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections
  • Syllabus: Cooper v. Harris
  • North Carolina v. Covington
  • North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
  • Supreme Court Rules That Citizenship Must Be Equally Heritable Through Fathers and Mothers
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Trump’s Travel Ban Heads to the Supreme Court
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project
  • Syllabus: Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions
  • Syllabus: Sessions v. Morales-Santana
  • Syllabus: Maslenjak v. United States
  • Selected Criminal Procedure Decisions – U.S. Supreme Court October 2016 Term
    Martin A. Schwartz
  • Section 1983 and Bivens Claims – United States Supreme Court October 2016 Term
    Martin A. Schwartz
  • Syllabus: Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
  • Syllabus: Beckles v. United States
  • Should Federalism Play a Role in the Interpretation of Civil Rights Laws?
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Supreme Court Severely Narrows Civil Rights Suits Against Federal Officers
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • The Supreme Court Considers Whether to Pierce Jury Secrecy for Evidence of Racial Bias
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • When a Conviction is Reversed, Can the State Make the Defendant Prove Her Innocence?
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • How Race Changes Things: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Buck v. Davis
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • Does the Juror Deliberation “Privilege” Work? Questioning the Supreme Court’s Assumptions
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • The Supreme Court Rejects Fake Facts in Capital Cases
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • The Importance of Protecting Jury Secrecy
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • Liberty, Property, Liberals, and Conservatives
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • Multi-Relevant Evidence in Criminal Cases
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • Attempting Confidentiality Rules with Non-Professionals
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • Expanding Reality-Based Law in the Death Penalty Area
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • Supreme Court Considers Whether to Grant Privacy to Cell Tower Location Records
    Professor Sherry F. Colb
  • Supreme Court Border-Shooting Non-Decision Confirms My Fears Regarding Bivens Actions
    Professor Michael C. Dorf
  • Supreme Court Business Review: October Term 2016
  • Syllabus: Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami
Co-Chair(s)
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky ~ Dean and Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Martin A. Schwartz ~ Professor Emeritus of Law, Touro Law Center
Speaker(s)
Joan Biskupic ~ CNN Legal Analyst and Supreme Court biographer, CNN
Professor Sherry F. Colb ~ Charles Evans Hughes Scholar, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Professor Michael C. Dorf ~ Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Professor Leon Friedman ~ Joseph Kushner Distinguished Professor of Civil Liberties Law, Hofstra University School of Law
Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta ~ United States Circuit Court Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Professor Burt Neuborne ~ Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties; Founding Legal Director, Brennan Center of Justice, New York University School of Law
Professor Theodore M. Shaw ~ Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law; Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Share
Email
"The best, most informative, most easily digestible CLE I have done with PLI!”
2016 On-Demand Viewer

“The faculty really is fantastic.  I have viewed this program over many years and always find it very worthwhile.  I will certainly include this program in my future study.  Many thanks to all of the presenters.”
2016 On-Demand Viewer

"This is a fantastic program that covers an enormous amount of Supreme Court territory.  I look forward to next year's program."
- Matthew McGuire, Alston & Bird LLP


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.