Federal Practice Forum 2024: 3 General

Courses Included

• Federal Practice Forum 2024: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Federal District Court
  
  

  In this session, Susan McDonald will discuss alternative dispute resolution in federal courts and how they are implemented, to some extent, around the country, but will then focus the discussion on Tennessee. Some court programs are limited to mediation while others offer options such as judicial settlement conferences and early neutral evaluation. The three districts in Tennessee demonstrate the range of programs, and McDonald will explicate by unpacking six elements of a court-ADR program: (1) selection of cases; (2) confidentiality; (3) neutrals; (4) types of ADR; (5) responsibilities of parties and counsel; and (6) fees and funding.

  Course Information

  Format:Online VideoDual Credits:0.00General Credits:1.00

  Speakers/Producers

  

  • Susan McDonald, Mcdonald dispute resolution pllc, nashville
• Federal Practice Forum 2024 - Inside the Park Docket: Crimes in the National Parks and Other Federally Regulated Areas; and A Supreme Court Update
  
  

  Assistant US Attorney Frank Clark will disentangle jurisdiction issues in national parks and other federally regulated areas, then Assistant US Attorney Luke McLaurin will give a brief overview of some recent Supreme Court decisions.

  Course Information

  Format:Online VideoDual Credits:0.00General Credits:1.00

  Speakers/Producers

  

  • Frank Clark, United States Attorney's Office, Knoxville
  • Luke McLaurin, United States Attorney's Office, Knoxville
• Federal Practice Forum 2024: The Rise and Fall of the House of Chevron
  
  

  On the last day of the 2024 term, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overruled the seminal decision regarding agency deference, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel. Chevron provided that courts were required to uphold an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute, even if it was not the best interpretation. The stark difference in opinions shed light on the stakes. According to the majority, Chevron was “fundamentally misguided.” Justice Gorsuch said Chevron undermined the Founder’s international decision to place the judicial power out of the hands of the executive. On the other hand, the dissenters predicted “massive shock to the legal system,” and claimed the judiciary now had appropriated “exclusive power over every open issue.” So who is right? What is Chevron? Where does it come from? Why does it matter? What is the future of agency deference post-Loper Bright?

  Course Information

  Format:Online VideoDual Credits:0.00General Credits:1.00

  Speakers/Producers

  

  • Braden Boucek, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Brentwood
    Braden H. Boucek serves as Director of Litigation at Southeastern Legal Foundation. He is a constitutional lawyer, actively litigating to advance the goal of promoting freedom and equal opportunity in...