On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

20th Annual Supreme Court Review: October 2017 Term

Released on: Aug. 9, 2018
Running Time: 06:23:48
This term the United States has confronted a wide range of vital constitutional issues. The Court has granted review in cases raising questions of equality in voting; freedom of speech and religion; immigration; Fourth Amendment searches; and federal and state legislative power. The specific issues include: the constitutionality of political gerrymandering; whether compulsory union dues violate the First Amendment; whether a state ban against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is enforceable against an individual who asserts an objection on speech and religion grounds; the validity of Travel Ban III; whether cell phone tracking is a Fourth Amendment search; and whether Congress has the power to prohibit states from authorizing sports gambling.

At PLI’s 20th Annual Supreme Court Review program, an extraordinary faculty representing various constitutional views and perspectives will analyze the leading U.S. Supreme Court decisions rendered during the October 2017 Term. The faculty includes a law school dean, law professors, a Supreme Court journalist, constitutional scholars, and civil rights experts. They will analyze and discuss the Court’s decisions for their doctrinal, precedential and, where appropriate, litigation significance.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:23:48]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:03:29]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Overview of the Supreme Court October 2017 Term [01:20:45]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Joan Biskupic, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Miguel A. Estrada, Janai S. Nelson, Professor Burt Neuborne, Professor Cristina Rodriguez, Martin A. Schwartz, Professor Theodore M. Shaw
  • Equality in Voting [00:57:16]
    Professor Theodore M. Shaw, Joan Biskupic, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Miguel A. Estrada, Janai S. Nelson, Professor Burt Neuborne, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court October 2017 Term: Freedom of Speech and Religion [01:02:02]
    Professor Michael C. Dorf, Professor Burt Neuborne, Joan Biskupic, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Miguel A. Estrada, Janai S. Nelson, Professor Cristina Rodriguez, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court October 2017 Term: Immigration and Deportation [00:58:11]
    Professor Cristina Rodriguez, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Miguel A. Estrada, Professor Leon Friedman, Janai S. Nelson, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court October 2017 Term: Criminal Procedure and Actions Against Law Enforcement Officers [01:03:09]
    Professor Sherry F. Colb, Martin A. Schwartz, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Professor Leon Friedman, Professor Theodore M. Shaw, Miguel A. Estrada
  • Supreme Court October 2017 Term: Business Interests (including federal and state governmental power, and arbitration) [00:58:56]
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Michael C. Dorf, Miguel A. Estrada, Professor Leon Friedman, Martin A. Schwartz, Professor Theodore M. Shaw

Presentation Material

  • Course Handbook: 20th Annual Supreme Court Review
    Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Martin A. Schwartz
  • Supreme Court: October Term 2017
  • The Beginning of a New Era in the Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court Decisions, 2017-18 Term
  • Justice Kennedy’s Genius
  • Syllabus: Gill v. Whitford
  • Is There a Silver Lining in the Wisconsin Gerrymandering Standing Decision?
  • Syllabus: Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
  • Syllabus: Abbott v. Perez
  • North Carolina v. Covington
  • In Janus, Collective Bargaining is the New Broccoli
  • Rape, Racism, Free Speech, and Fraternities
  • Syllabus: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n
  • Amicus Curiae Brief: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling Should (But Probably Won't) Doom the Travel Ban
  • SCOTUS Crisis Pregnancy Center Case Shows Originalist Justices Are Originalist Except When They're Not
  • Syllabus: Trump v. Hawaii
  • Silver Linings in an Otherwise Disappointing Travel Ban Ruling
  • Amicus Curiae Brief: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. in Support of Respondents, Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. Hawaii
  • The Radical Supreme Court Travel Ban Opinion – But why it might not apply to other immigrants’ rights cases
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez Might Not Be About Immigration After All
  • Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation: Supreme Court Developments- October 2017 Term
  • Syllabus: Carpenter v. United States
  • Justice Kennedy Finds Privacy Outside But Not Inside the Fourth Amendment
  • Why Justice Gorsuch May Have Avoided the Word "Privacy" at the Carpenter Oral Argument
  • Carpenter and the Beginning of the End of Privacy
  • Why Not ‘Just Say No’ to Sexual Harassers?
  • When Exercising One’s Autonomy Clashes With One’s Best Interests
  • Do Defendants Have the Right to Make Bad Decisions?
  • The US Supreme Court Considers the Scope of the Automobile Exception
  • Does the Automobile Exception to the Warrant Requirement Extend to Private Driveways?
  • Collins v. Virginia: An Innocuous, Fourth Amendment Decision About Curtilage
  • Dogs and the Fourth Amendment
  • Fourth Amendment and Article III Standing
  • Rental Cars, Privacy, and Suppression of Evidence
  • Do 18 Year Olds Have a Constitutional Right to Guns?
  • Excerpt, Supreme Court: October Term 2017
  • Broad Implications of a Narrow Supreme Court Ruling on Tribal Sovereign Immunity
  • Supreme Court Divides Over What a Law Is
  • Congress, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Wayfair Case
  • The Political Stakes of Commandeering in Murphy v. NCAA
  • Whither Severability After Murphy v. NCAA?
  • Originalism, the Contracts Clause, and the Sveen Case
  • Of Legislatures, Courts, and the Contracts Clause (Sveen Part 2) 
Co-Chair(s)
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky ~ Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished 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 ~ C.S. Wong Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Professor Michael C. Dorf ~ Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Miguel A. Estrada ~ Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Professor Leon Friedman ~ Joseph Kushner Distinguished Professor of Civil Liberties Law, Hofstra University School of Law
Janai S. Nelson ~ Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
Professor Burt Neuborne ~ Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties; Founding Legal Director, Brennan Center of Justice, New York University School of Law
Professor Cristina Rodriguez ~ Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law, Yale Law School
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 “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded 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:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay 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:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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 15 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.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. 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.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

21st Annual Supreme Court Review: October 2018 Term (New York, NY) Aug. 1, 2019

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

19th Annual Supreme Court Review: October 2016 Term Aug. 14, 2017
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.