2 MAY 2024 · Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of Labor and Administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The employees received disciplinary action and ultimately lost their jobs in the wake of their involvement in a unionization effort. In the following investigation, the NLRB found that there was reasonable cause to believe Starbucks had acted in retaliation against protected unionization efforts. A district court issued a temporary injunction and required the 7 former employees to be reinstated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal, concluding the NLRB had satisfied its burden in showing there was "reasonable cause" that Starbucks had violated the National Labor Relations Act and thus the NLRB could use its remedial power. Starbucks appealed again and the case was heard by the Supreme Court on April 23, 2023. The question before the Supreme Court, however, is not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the NLRA, but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the NLRB needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use? Join us as we break down and analyze this interesting case and the Oral Argument in the days following the argument before the Court. Featuring: Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

1 MAY 2024 · On March 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas entered a declaratory judgment and nationwide injunction against the Minority Business Development Agency, preventing the agency from extending a federally-sponsored racial preference to groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. This case, Nuziard v. MBDA, expands upon last summer's Supreme Court ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions. Daniel Lennington of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, who litigated the case, discussed the case and its impact on the future of equality.

30 APR 2024 · In 2002, under Chairman Michael Powell, the FCC passed the Cable Modem Order which classified cable modem internet service providers (ISPs) as not subject to common carrier non-discrimination requirements. The order’s critics said the FCC had created a non-neutral internet where dominant firms could use their market power to harm consumers and diminish competition. After several attempts, which the D.C. Circuit rejected, the FCC under Chairman Wheeler imposed network neutrality requirements on ISPs in the Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet order in 2015. Then, the FCC under Chairman Pai largely revoked the network neutrality rules in the Restoring Internet Freedom order in 2017. Now, under Chair Rosenworcel the FCC has just reimposed network neutrality. This panel discussed the legal future on appeal of this most recent iteration in what appears to be an unending partisan regulatory saga—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s changing views on administrative review. The panel also investigated whether this over two decade old policy dispute is fighting yesterday’s war as many believe that there have been few competitive abuses by ISPs during the last two decades—and arguably competitive abuses by dominant firms has moved elsewhere in the web.

30 APR 2024 · In the consolidated Students for Fair Admissions cases, the Supreme Court held unlawful the use of race in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Many colleges and universities have nonetheless indicated that they plan to circumvent the decision by using proxies for race instead. A 1978 Supreme Court case, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing, held that using proxies for race to discriminate is generally as unlawful as using race itself. Arlington Heights also sets forth a test for identifying when a challenged policy is prohibited proxy discrimination. But the lower courts have applied Arlington Heights in different ways to challenged admissions policies, with some lower courts engaging in tough scrutiny of challenged policies and with others being much more deferential to assertions of benign intent. This panel addressed: is proxy discrimination unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment? If yes, what is the right legal test -- Arlington Heights or something else? What challenged policies, if any, are prohibited proxy discrimination?

26 APR 2024 · In 2021, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, private litigants sued to challenge the Arkansas state House redistricting map as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting the vote of racial minorities. In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not grant a private right of action. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court holding, and in 2024, the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing of the case en banc. In this panel, three voting rights practitioners will provide their analysis of the Voting Rights Act, the Eighth Circuit's decision, and the implications of this decision on redistricting and voting rights cases. Featuring: J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General, The State of Arkansas Jeffrey Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School & Senior Fellow, New York Census and Redistricting Institute (Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney

26 APR 2024 · John Ream, an engineer and owner of Trek Brewing Company which creates craft beers in Newark, Ohio, is suing the U.S. Department of Treasury over the regulations that prohibit distilling spirits and hard alcohols at home. Mr. Ream asserts that he would like to pursue the hobby of distilling spirits at home for his personal use but cannot because of federal legislation. The federal law, passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, makes it a felony punishable by $10,000 in fines and five years in prison, to distill hard alcohol, even for personal use. Mr. Ream, represented by The Buckeye Institute, alleges that this prohibition is unconstitutional and exceeds the powers granted Congress by the Commerce Clause, since it seeks to regulate non-commercial activity. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, early in 2024, and is currently making its way through the litigation process. Join us for a litigation update on Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury featuring Robert Alt, lead attorney at The Buckeye Institute representing Mr. Ream. Featuring: Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute (Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP

26 APR 2024 · In February 2022, a District of New Jersey court in United States v. Coburn compelled a private company to produce internal investigation materials to two of its former executives, who had been indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") relating to an alleged foreign bribery scheme. This panel will explore the implications that this decision, and its legal reasoning, might have on attorneys and clients who are attempting to cooperate with DOJ as part of a self-disclosure strategy with the intent to earn "cooperation credit," while at the same time protecting the attorney-client and work product privileges emanating from internal investigations conducted on behalf of one's corporate client. Featuring: Hon. Don Cochran, Professor of Law, Belmont University College of Law Hon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding (Moderator) Hon. David C. Joseph, United States District Court Judge, Western District of Louisiana

23 APR 2024 · Generally, when Congress strips courts of jurisdiction, it does so by implementing broad, forward-looking, statutory bars that insulate agency decisions or foreclose appeal. In response to the protracted litigation surrounding construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Congress passed a unique statutory provision which (1) granted all required approvals for the pipeline to proceed and (2) stripped every court’s jurisdiction to review the pipeline’s permit approvals. Simultaneously, the amendment granted the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over all constitutional challenges to the jurisdiction stripping provision. The case-specific impact of this legislation prompted much public concern and Supreme Court review. Petitioners unsuccessfully argued that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by intervening to effect a specific outcome in a specific case Respondents prevailed on the counterargument that Congress merely made new underlying law without directing any decision of an Article III court. In this panel, academic commentators and amici from the case discussed the careful distinctions between amendments to substantive law and case-specific jurisdiction stripping, sharing insights on the separation-of-powers questions both behaviors raise.

23 APR 2024 · In July of 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in Clarke v. CFTC, and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The case is one concerning the CFTC's revocation of its "no-action letter" concerning PredictIt Market. PredictIt Market is an online marketplace for people to trade contracts predicting important political events, started as a research tool by Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. Before going into operation, PredictIt sought a "no-action letter" from the CFTC to operate in the US without registering under the Commodity Exchange Act as a designated contract market, which the CFTC issued in 2014. However, in August 2022, the CFTC withdrew the letter and issued notice to PredictIt to cease operations within 6 months, which led to suit being filed by supporters of PredictIt. Questions included whether the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, whether the letter constituted "final action" on the part of the agency, and whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. Join us as a panel of experts discuss this interesting case. Featuring: Michael Edney, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Hon. David Mason, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Aristotle International Connor Raso, Deputy General Counsel, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (Moderator) Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

23 APR 2024 · City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson concerns whether the sections of the Grants Pass Municipal Code which prohibit sleeping/camping on public property like parks and streets constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The codes in question only impose civil penalties, which can, in certain circumstances develop into criminal penalties. The case parallels the 2018 case Martin v. City of Boise, in which the Ninth Circuit held that criminal penalties for sleeping/camping on public property violated the Eighth Amendment. Grants Pass raises the question of whether that extends to civil penalties. The case was originally filed in 2018 by a group of individuals including Gloria Johnson affected by the Grants Pass Municipal Codes, and in 2022 the Ninth Circuit decided in favor of the group. The city appealed and it is set to be heard at the Supreme Court on Monday, April 22. Supporters of the city of Grants Pass have argued that these codes and those like them are important for addressing issues of local governance and public health and safety. They contend having courts meddle in issues that pertain to local matters is dangerous and preempts local law enforcement and governments from serving their communities. Detractors claim that the codes endanger those who are involuntarily homeless and impose disproportionate punishment for a non-criminal status. Join us for a Courthouse Steps preview on this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights. Featuring: Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Property Rights, Pacific Legal Foundation