Most Popular Videos of 2015
|Topics:||Federalism & Separation of Powers|
As a new year fast approaches, let's take a moment to look back at some of the best FedSoc content from 2015. This year we put more work into video content, especially short videos about Supreme Court cases. Videos help us reach new, broader audiences with fewer resources compared to other content. In 2015 our videos were watched more than 279,000 times on YouTube for more than 1 million minutes. (That's the equivalent of more than 700 days.)
Here are the most popular videos from 2015:
5. Should a royalty agreement exceed the life of a patent? (Kimble v. Marvel)
Professor Greg Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law discusses the dispute in Kimble v. Marvel, a case argued before the Supreme Court in March. Petitioner Kimble invented and patented a toy. Respondent Marvel contractually agreed to pay royalties on that patent that included a period of time after the expiration of the patent. The Court is being asked to overrule a precedent dating back to 1964 which held such agreements to be unlawful per se.
4. Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez (The Texting Case)
Advertising agency Campbell-Ewald sent recruitment texts to Jose Gomez on behalf of the US Navy, violating a little-known law. When Mr. Gomez sued, Campbell-Ewald offered to pay the statutory damages in full. In this upcoming case, the Supreme Court will consider whether or not Mr. Gomez has Article III standing: is there still a controversy since an offer for complete relief has been made? Washington Legal Foundation Attorney Chief Counsel Richard A. Samp previews the case being argued October 14. Mr. Samp clarifies that although the Supreme Court will decide whether or not Mr. Gomez has standing to sue, the underlying issue involves the possibility of a Class Action lawsuit against Campbell-Ewald. Mr. Samp authored the Washington Legal Foundation amicus curiae brief in support of petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company.
3. Trial by Formula & Class Action Lawsuits
Attorney Anastasia Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation previews the upcoming Supreme Court case Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo. In the case, workers sued Tyson Food for not paying them for time spent taking on and off their work equipment. Since no time records for such activity were kept, the lower court allowed damages to be determined based on an average time for class members and then applied it to the entire remaining class. Ms. Boden explains the concept of “Trial by Formula” and its implications in this case. The Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief co-authored by Ms. Boden in support of the petitioner Tyson Foods.
2. Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell
The Honorable Eileen J. O’Connor, partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, explains the impact of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate on the Little Sisters of the Poor. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, the sisters have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari because they believe that following the accommodation offered by HHS violates their Freedom of Religion. The government argues that the accommodation HHS designed relieves the Little Sisters of complicity in the provision of contraceptives, and therefore their religious liberty is not implicated.
1. Injury & Article III (Spokeo/Search Engine Case)
University of Utah Law Professor Andy Hessick previews an upcoming Supreme Court case and explains the possible application of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to search engines. Mr. Robins found that one of these internet search engines, Spokeo, provided incorrect information about his age, education and marital status. Spokeo, a website that aggregates data from a variety of online sources, claims that Robins lacks standing because he did not suffer an “injury in fact.” In opposition, Robins claims that a violation of the FCRA alone constitutes an injury.