https://www.spreaker.com/show/practice-groups-podcasts_1enPoliticsCopyright The Federalist Societyhttps://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/18c47c1249f2bf5809010626b547703a.jpghttps://www.spreaker.com/show/practice-groups-podcasts_1Mon, 12 Dec 2022 14:47:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Societyinfo@fedsoc.orgThis series of podcasts features experts who analyze the latest developments in the legal and policy world. The podcasts are in the form of monologues, podcast debates or panel discussions and vary in length. The Federalist Society takes no position...cleanepisodichttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/what-is-the-future-of-u-s-counterintelliFeaturing:
Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
William Evanina, CEO, The Evanina Group; Former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52133877Wed, 07 Dec 2022 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a detailed report in September 2022 on the state of the U.S. Counterintelligence (CI) mission. Among other things, the report noted that the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC),...Featuring:
Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
William Evanina, CEO, The Evanina Group; Former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center]]>3463cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-303-creatMs. Smith was looking to expand her business to include designing websites for weddings but would only design for weddings that were in line with her religious convictions, which meant she would not design websites for same-sex weddings. Further, in expanding her business, she wanted to post a message to her own professional website to communicate what wedding websites she would do, and explain her religious objections to same-sex weddings.
Because 303 Creative LLC. is a business open to the public, however, it falls under CADA, which prohibits any business from discriminating against possible patrons based on a list of characteristics, one of which is sexual identity. Further, CADA defines discrimination not only as the refusal to provide goods or services but also as the promulgation of messaging that says or implies that a potential patron’s business would be unwelcome based on them possessing a protected trait. Under CADA, both the refusal to create webpages for same sex weddings and the promulgation of a message that Ms. Smith would not create such webpages, even if she is never asked so to do, would be illegal.
Before any action was taken against her under CADA, Ms. Smith and 303 Creative LLC. challenged CADA in federal court, alleging its unconstitutionality. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of Colorado, and upon appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision.
Our panel of experts will break down and analyze how the Supreme Court oral argument went the same day.

Featuring:

Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
[Moderator] Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52132923Mon, 05 Dec 2022 19:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 5,2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Petitioner Lorie Smith, an artist in Colorado and owner/founder of the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC. is challenging Colorado’s...Ms. Smith was looking to expand her business to include designing websites for weddings but would only design for weddings that were in line with her religious convictions, which meant she would not design websites for same-sex weddings. Further, in expanding her business, she wanted to post a message to her own professional website to communicate what wedding websites she would do, and explain her religious objections to same-sex weddings.
Because 303 Creative LLC. is a business open to the public, however, it falls under CADA, which prohibits any business from discriminating against possible patrons based on a list of characteristics, one of which is sexual identity. Further, CADA defines discrimination not only as the refusal to provide goods or services but also as the promulgation of messaging that says or implies that a potential patron’s business would be unwelcome based on them possessing a protected trait. Under CADA, both the refusal to create webpages for same sex weddings and the promulgation of a message that Ms. Smith would not create such webpages, even if she is never asked so to do, would be illegal.
Before any action was taken against her under CADA, Ms. Smith and 303 Creative LLC. challenged CADA in federal court, alleging its unconstitutionality. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of Colorado, and upon appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision.
Our panel of experts will break down and analyze how the Supreme Court oral argument went the same day.

Featuring:

Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
[Moderator] Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>3657cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/post-oral-argument-courthouse-steps-perc
Justice Scalia once commented “[t]hough it consists of only 28 words, the [honest services] statute has been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.”

In this case, which has potentially broad implications for the continued criminalization of politics and lobbying, the Court is asked to decide if a private citizen who holds no elective office or government employment owes a fiduciary duty to the general public sufficient to be convicted of honest-services fraud if they have informal “influence” over government decisions.

Joseph Percoco was a longtime friend of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and served as Governor Cuomo’s Executive Deputy Secretary until he decided to leave government service to manager Governor Cuomo’s reelection campaign. While he was working on Governor Cuomo’s campaign, he was paid by a New York businessman to reach out to a state agency to resolve a labor issue. According to the trial court and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this effort deprived the citizens of New York of Mr. Percoco’s honest services.

According to both courts, the fact that Mr. Percoco was not a state employee was not dispositive -- what mattered was that Mr. Percoco “dominated and controlled” government business and that government officials “actually relied on” Percoco based on some “special relationship” between Mr. Percoco and the government.

If upheld, the Second Circuit’s test has the potential to greatly expand the application of federal honest services charges to people engaged in politics and lobbying.

This talk, featuring Mr. Gary Lawkowski, who is counsel of record for an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and the Presidential Coalition in Percoco v. United States, will break down the issues in this case and provide instant analysis on the oral argument heard by the Court.
Featuring:
--Mr. Gary M. Lawkowski, Counsel at Dhillon Law Group and Senior Fellow with the Institute for Free Speech.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52082215Fri, 02 Dec 2022 21:24:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in Percoco v. United States. Justice Scalia once commented “[t]hough it consists of only 28 words, the [honest services] statute has been invoked to impose criminal penalties...
Justice Scalia once commented “[t]hough it consists of only 28 words, the [honest services] statute has been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.”

In this case, which has potentially broad implications for the continued criminalization of politics and lobbying, the Court is asked to decide if a private citizen who holds no elective office or government employment owes a fiduciary duty to the general public sufficient to be convicted of honest-services fraud if they have informal “influence” over government decisions.

Joseph Percoco was a longtime friend of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and served as Governor Cuomo’s Executive Deputy Secretary until he decided to leave government service to manager Governor Cuomo’s reelection campaign. While he was working on Governor Cuomo’s campaign, he was paid by a New York businessman to reach out to a state agency to resolve a labor issue. According to the trial court and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this effort deprived the citizens of New York of Mr. Percoco’s honest services.

According to both courts, the fact that Mr. Percoco was not a state employee was not dispositive -- what mattered was that Mr. Percoco “dominated and controlled” government business and that government officials “actually relied on” Percoco based on some “special relationship” between Mr. Percoco and the government.

If upheld, the Second Circuit’s test has the potential to greatly expand the application of federal honest services charges to people engaged in politics and lobbying.

This talk, featuring Mr. Gary Lawkowski, who is counsel of record for an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and the Presidential Coalition in Percoco v. United States, will break down the issues in this case and provide instant analysis on the oral argument heard by the Court.
Featuring:
--Mr. Gary M. Lawkowski, Counsel at Dhillon Law Group and Senior Fellow with the Institute for Free Speech.]]>3286civil rights,criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of pow,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/nc-naacp-v-moore-the-impact-of-unconstit
Our panel of experts discussed this case and considered its implications for North Carolina and states across the country.

Featuring:
- Jeanette Doran, President and General Counsel, North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law
- Rick Glazier, Executive Director, North Carolina Justice Center
- Prof. Derek T. Muller, Ben V. Willie Professor in Excellence, University of Iowa College of Law
- Moderator: Hon. Robert T. Numbers, II, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52046479Tue, 29 Nov 2022 17:04:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2018, the North Carolina General Assembly placed several constitutional amendments before voters for ratification. Voters approved the amendments, which included amendments related to voter ID and a cap on the state income tax. But in August 2022,...
Our panel of experts discussed this case and considered its implications for North Carolina and states across the country.

Featuring:
- Jeanette Doran, President and General Counsel, North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law
- Rick Glazier, Executive Director, North Carolina Justice Center
- Prof. Derek T. Muller, Ben V. Willie Professor in Excellence, University of Iowa College of Law
- Moderator: Hon. Robert T. Numbers, II, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina]]>2995election law,federalism & separation of pow,state constitutions,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sec-v-coc
Before the SEC could rule on Cochran’s objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran’s.

Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ’s removal protections.

The case is set to be argued on Nov 7, 2022. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the next day, November 8, 2022.

Featuring:
--Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51980325Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:44:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a...
Before the SEC could rule on Cochran’s objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran’s.

Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ’s removal protections.

The case is set to be argued on Nov 7, 2022. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the next day, November 8, 2022.

Featuring:
--Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>3386cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/humphrey-s-executor-and-presidential-rem
Humphrey’s continues to have significant implications today, in cases like FTC v. Walmart (N.D. Ill.) where Walmart has argued that by virtue of Humphrey’s, the “quintessentially executive law-enforcement power” that the FTC has under its authorizing statute is unconstitutional because its commissioners are not removable at will by the President.

This teleforum will analyze the contemporary implications of Humphrey’s and its continuing vitality in U.S. Supreme Court’s administrative law jurisprudence.

Featuring:

--Gregory Dolin, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--Daniel Z. Epstein, Director, Trust Ventures
--Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
--Kimberly Wehle, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore Law School; Visiting Professor, Washington College of Law, American University
--[Moderator] Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, the George Washington University Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51980308Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:42:17 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn one of its most significant separation of powers opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Humphrey’s Executor v. United States 87 years ago, in which it held that President Roosevelt’s authority to remove a commissioner that his predecessor...
Humphrey’s continues to have significant implications today, in cases like FTC v. Walmart (N.D. Ill.) where Walmart has argued that by virtue of Humphrey’s, the “quintessentially executive law-enforcement power” that the FTC has under its authorizing statute is unconstitutional because its commissioners are not removable at will by the President.

This teleforum will analyze the contemporary implications of Humphrey’s and its continuing vitality in U.S. Supreme Court’s administrative law jurisprudence.

Featuring:

--Gregory Dolin, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--Daniel Z. Epstein, Director, Trust Ventures
--Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
--Kimberly Wehle, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore Law School; Visiting Professor, Washington College of Law, American University
--[Moderator] Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, the George Washington University Law School]]>3525cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/recent-doj-policy-for-charging-cases-und
Does the new DOJ charging policy strike a reasonable balance between privacy and law enforcement interests? Do its protections for security research go far enough, or do they extend too far? In the wake of Van Buren and this policy, does the federal government have adequate tools to address insider threats, especially where such threats are focused on invasions of privacy and confidentiality instead of being motivated by financial gain?

Join us as our panel of experts break down these questions.

Featuring:
--Prof. Orin Kerr, Willam G. Simon Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
--Prof. Michael Levy, Adjunct Professor of Law, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania
--[Moderator] John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51980149Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:38:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Justice Department recently announced the issuance of a revised internal policy for charging cases brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), our nation's main computer crime statute. This revised policy was issued in the wake of the...
Does the new DOJ charging policy strike a reasonable balance between privacy and law enforcement interests? Do its protections for security research go far enough, or do they extend too far? In the wake of Van Buren and this policy, does the federal government have adequate tools to address insider threats, especially where such threats are focused on invasions of privacy and confidentiality instead of being motivated by financial gain?

Join us as our panel of experts break down these questions.

Featuring:
--Prof. Orin Kerr, Willam G. Simon Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
--Prof. Michael Levy, Adjunct Professor of Law, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania
--[Moderator] John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>3450cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-mallory-v
Petitioner Robert Mallory, a Virginia resident, sued Virginia-based Norfolk Southern in sued in the Court of Common Pleas, the court of general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, claiming that exposure to carcinogens while working for the company caused him to develop colon cancer. According to his complaint, Mallory was exposed to harmful carcinogens while employed by Defendant in Ohio and Virginia between 1988 through 2005. He did not allege that he suffered any harmful occupational exposures in Pennsylvania but sued in Pennsylvania court on a theory that the court could exercise jurisdiction over the Virginia company because it had registered to do business in Pennsylvania.

Under Pennsylvania law, a foreign corporation “may not do business in this Commonwealth until it registers” with the Department of State of the Commonwealth. State law further establishes that registration constitutes a sufficient basis for Pennsylvania courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over that foreign corporation. Norfolk Southern Railway objected to the exercise of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the exercise violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court agreed and held Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.

The Supreme Court is to decide if a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Featuring:

--John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.


Associated Blog Post: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: Oral Argument Preview]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51968903Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:03:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 8, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway. Petitioner Robert Mallory, a Virginia resident, sued Virginia-based Norfolk Southern in sued in the Court of Common Pleas, the court of general...
Petitioner Robert Mallory, a Virginia resident, sued Virginia-based Norfolk Southern in sued in the Court of Common Pleas, the court of general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, claiming that exposure to carcinogens while working for the company caused him to develop colon cancer. According to his complaint, Mallory was exposed to harmful carcinogens while employed by Defendant in Ohio and Virginia between 1988 through 2005. He did not allege that he suffered any harmful occupational exposures in Pennsylvania but sued in Pennsylvania court on a theory that the court could exercise jurisdiction over the Virginia company because it had registered to do business in Pennsylvania.

Under Pennsylvania law, a foreign corporation “may not do business in this Commonwealth until it registers” with the Department of State of the Commonwealth. State law further establishes that registration constitutes a sufficient basis for Pennsylvania courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over that foreign corporation. Norfolk Southern Railway objected to the exercise of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the exercise violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court agreed and held Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.

The Supreme Court is to decide if a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Featuring:

--John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.


Associated Blog Post: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: Oral Argument Preview]]>3077constitution,due process,fourteenth amendment,state courts,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-garrison-v-u-s-dept-of
This Litigation Update from Caleb Kruckenberg will provide a current look at Garrison v. U.S. Department of Education.

Featuring

--Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, Pacific Legal Foundation
--[Moderator] Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy, The Heritiage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51967916Mon, 21 Nov 2022 16:50:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn August 2022, the Biden administration announced plans to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt per person for more than 40 million Americans. To do this, the Department of Education relies on the HEROES Act which, as an aid to veterans and...
This Litigation Update from Caleb Kruckenberg will provide a current look at Garrison v. U.S. Department of Education.

Featuring

--Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, Pacific Legal Foundation
--[Moderator] Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy, The Heritiage Foundation]]>3509administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-vincent-phillip-munoz
In Religious Liberty and the American Founding, Vincent Phillip Muñoz addresses these questions and others, offering a novel interpretation of Founders’ philosophy and constitutionalism of religious liberty. Drawing on early state constitutions, declarations of religious freedom, Founding-era debates, and the First Amendment’s drafting record, the book documents and articulates the Founders’ understanding of religious liberty as an inalienable natural right, uncovers what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, and constructs a natural rights jurisprudence of religious liberty, exploring and explaining how the Founders’ principles would adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues. Contrary to what many might assume, Muñoz contends that adherence to the Founders would lead neither to consistently conservative nor consistently liberal results, but rather to a novel church-state jurisprudence that, in most cases, would return authority from the judiciary to the American people.

Join us for a conversation of Professor Muñoz’s new book, with Professor Muñoz himself and moderated by Michael McConnell, the director of Stanford Law School’s Constitutional Law Center.

Featuring:

--Vincent Phillip Muñoz , Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--Moderator: Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51921226Wed, 16 Nov 2022 21:29:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat did the American Founders mean when they declared religious liberty to be an “inherent,” “natural” and “inalienable” right? Does the right to religious liberty provide religious exemptions from generally applicable laws? What is wrong with a...
In Religious Liberty and the American Founding, Vincent Phillip Muñoz addresses these questions and others, offering a novel interpretation of Founders’ philosophy and constitutionalism of religious liberty. Drawing on early state constitutions, declarations of religious freedom, Founding-era debates, and the First Amendment’s drafting record, the book documents and articulates the Founders’ understanding of religious liberty as an inalienable natural right, uncovers what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, and constructs a natural rights jurisprudence of religious liberty, exploring and explaining how the Founders’ principles would adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues. Contrary to what many might assume, Muñoz contends that adherence to the Founders would lead neither to consistently conservative nor consistently liberal results, but rather to a novel church-state jurisprudence that, in most cases, would return authority from the judiciary to the American people.

Join us for a conversation of Professor Muñoz’s new book, with Professor Muñoz himself and moderated by Michael McConnell, the director of Stanford Law School’s Constitutional Law Center.

Featuring:

--Vincent Phillip Muñoz , Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--Moderator: Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution]]>3694cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/suing-religious-employers-the-extent-of-
Additionally, is the exemption waived if the employer is a recipient of federal financial assistance? How does the exemption in Title VII compare with other defenses available to the employer such as the ministerial exception (Church Autonomy Theory), Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment’s free-speech and free-exercise clauses? What if the religious employer is sued in a similar claim under a state or municipal human rights act?

Experts Sharon Gustafson, Jennifer Goldstein, and Carl Esbeck will discuss some of these questions in this webinar on the extent of exemptions extended to religious employers under Title VII.


Featuring:

--Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Missouri
--Sharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLC
--Jennifer Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51921190Wed, 16 Nov 2022 21:27:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyReligious employers are exempt under §§ 702(a) and 703(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.2000e—1(a) and 2000e—2(e)(1), when sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. However questions can still arise when Religious employers undertake actions...
Additionally, is the exemption waived if the employer is a recipient of federal financial assistance? How does the exemption in Title VII compare with other defenses available to the employer such as the ministerial exception (Church Autonomy Theory), Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment’s free-speech and free-exercise clauses? What if the religious employer is sued in a similar claim under a state or municipal human rights act?

Experts Sharon Gustafson, Jennifer Goldstein, and Carl Esbeck will discuss some of these questions in this webinar on the extent of exemptions extended to religious employers under Title VII.


Featuring:

--Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Missouri
--Sharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLC
--Jennifer Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]>3805religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/tiwari-v-friedlander-which-rational-basiThe Petitioners, Dipendra Tiwari and Kishor Sapkota, challenge Kentucky’s Certificate-of-Need (CON) Law as an unconstitutional infringement on their right to earn an honest living. The CON law prevents them from opening a healthcare agency they designed to provide home services to the large community of Nepali-speaking refugees and immigrants in Louisville. By contrast, Kentucky contends that the CON law is necessary for lowering competitive pressure and increasing profits for incumbents who can pass their gains to the public.
The petition raises questions about the proper articulation of the rational basis test and whether the right to engage in a common occupation is deeply rooted in history and tradition under the Court’s recent landmark decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Which Rational Basis Test is it anyway? Is the Right to Engage in a Common Occupation Deeply Rooted in History and Tradition and does the Fourteenth Amendment Guarantee Meaningful Protection for that Right?
To discuss the petition and these questions, please join the lead attorney for the Petitioners, Andrew H. Ward, attorney at the Institute for Justice, and Professor David Upham, Director of Legal Studies and Associate Professor at the University of Dallas.
Featuring:
Andrew Ward, Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. David Upham, Director of Legal Studies & Associate Professor, University of Dallas
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51812856Mon, 07 Nov 2022 15:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Tiwari v. Friedlander, the Petitioners ask the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to address whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires meaningful review of restrictions on the right to engage in a common occupation. The petition argues that the...The Petitioners, Dipendra Tiwari and Kishor Sapkota, challenge Kentucky’s Certificate-of-Need (CON) Law as an unconstitutional infringement on their right to earn an honest living. The CON law prevents them from opening a healthcare agency they designed to provide home services to the large community of Nepali-speaking refugees and immigrants in Louisville. By contrast, Kentucky contends that the CON law is necessary for lowering competitive pressure and increasing profits for incumbents who can pass their gains to the public.
The petition raises questions about the proper articulation of the rational basis test and whether the right to engage in a common occupation is deeply rooted in history and tradition under the Court’s recent landmark decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Which Rational Basis Test is it anyway? Is the Right to Engage in a Common Occupation Deeply Rooted in History and Tradition and does the Fourteenth Amendment Guarantee Meaningful Protection for that Right?
To discuss the petition and these questions, please join the lead attorney for the Petitioners, Andrew H. Ward, attorney at the Institute for Justice, and Professor David Upham, Director of Legal Studies and Associate Professor at the University of Dallas.
Featuring:
Andrew Ward, Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. David Upham, Director of Legal Studies & Associate Professor, University of Dallas
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts
---
To register, click the link above.]]>3640cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sffa-v-haIn perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
Our experts broke down the oral argument on the same day, October 31, 2022.
Featuring:
Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School
Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Moderator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51768034Wed, 02 Nov 2022 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially...In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
Our experts broke down the oral argument on the same day, October 31, 2022.
Featuring:
Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School
Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Moderator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>3862affirmative action,civil rights,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/what-are-the-limits-of-emergency-executi
Featuring:
- Daniel J. Dew, Legal Policy Director, Pacific Legal Foundation
- Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School
- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51756477Tue, 01 Nov 2022 21:06:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe use of presidential emergency powers has raised controversy under administrations of both parties. President Trump's attempt to transfer funds to build his border wall, the CDC's eviction moratorium and OSHA vaccine mandate, Title 42 border...
Featuring:
- Daniel J. Dew, Legal Policy Director, Pacific Legal Foundation
- Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School
- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>3873constitution,federalism & separation of pow,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-arizonas-new-police-recording-law-conFeaturing:
Alexa L. Gervasi, Executive Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution
Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
Moderator: Stephen Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

---]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51708605Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:23:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis summer, the state of Arizona passed a law that will prohibit the ability of the public and press to video record police officers in certain situations. Alexa L. Gervasi, the Executive Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, will...Featuring:
Alexa L. Gervasi, Executive Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution
Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
Moderator: Stephen Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

---]]>2038cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-classified-the-untoldProfessor Bernstein joins us to discuss his book and the role that racial classifications should or should not play in our society.
Featuring:
Professor David Bernstein, University Professor and Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51708544Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:17:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his recent book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, Professor David Bernstein breaks down the history of American racial classifications, and raises questions about the classifications’ coherence, logic, and fairness....Professor Bernstein joins us to discuss his book and the role that racial classifications should or should not play in our society.
Featuring:
Professor David Bernstein, University Professor and Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm]]>3871civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-merrill-vFollowing the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state’s population. With these new lines, only one of the state’s seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.
The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.
We will break down the argument on the same day, October 4, 2022.
Featuring:
David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51708447Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:03:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan. Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state’s population. With these new...Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state’s population. With these new lines, only one of the state’s seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.
The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.
We will break down the argument on the same day, October 4, 2022.
Featuring:
David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>3604civil rights,election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/what-s-next-for-crypto-implications-of-d
Featuring:
Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
Alexandra Gaiser, Director of Regulatory Affairs, River Financial
Steven Lofchie, Corporate Partner, Fried Frank
J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, the Mises Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51708316Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:44:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyEvents of 2022 brought a "crypto winter," with average prices of cryptocurrencies falling about 70% from their 2021 highs, the bankruptcy of several crypto companies, the complete collapse of a popular so-called "stable" coin, unexpected suspensions...
Featuring:
Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
Alexandra Gaiser, Director of Regulatory Affairs, River Financial
Steven Lofchie, Corporate Partner, Fried Frank
J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, the Mises Institute]]>3637cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-the-office-of-foreign-assets-controls
As opposed to sanctioning people, organizations, or particular addresses associated with rogue regimes, OFAC has sanctioned the code of Tornado Cash itself, causing critics to claim that OFAC has exceeded its statutory authority .

Join our experts as they discuss OFAC’s blacklisting of Tornado Cash, potential litigation from opponents, and the broader implications for financial privacy, national security, and free speech.


Featuring:
--Paul Brigner, Head of U.S. Policy and Strategic Advocacy, Electric Coin Company.
--Michael Mosier, General Counsel, Espresso Systems
--Kevin Werbach, Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
--Moderator: J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51708418Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyTornado Cash is an open source, decentralized cryptocurrency tumbler that was introduced in 2019. The service allows users to mix identifiable Ethereum cryptocurrency funds with others, thus obscuring the trail back to the funds original source. On...
As opposed to sanctioning people, organizations, or particular addresses associated with rogue regimes, OFAC has sanctioned the code of Tornado Cash itself, causing critics to claim that OFAC has exceeded its statutory authority .

Join our experts as they discuss OFAC’s blacklisting of Tornado Cash, potential litigation from opponents, and the broader implications for financial privacy, national security, and free speech.


Featuring:
--Paul Brigner, Head of U.S. Policy and Strategic Advocacy, Electric Coin Company.
--Michael Mosier, General Counsel, Espresso Systems
--Kevin Werbach, Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
--Moderator: J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>4087administrative law & regulatio,cryptocurrency,financial services,free speech & election law,international law & trade,international & national secur,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-national-
Oral arguments took place on October 11. That afternoon, the Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro joined us to analyze the arguments and examine the issues underlying the case.

Featuring:

--Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51626859Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court will address the dormant commerce clause in the context of a California law regarding the housing of farm animals. Specifically, the Court will decide "whether allegations that a state law...
Oral arguments took place on October 11. That afternoon, the Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro joined us to analyze the arguments and examine the issues underlying the case.

Featuring:

--Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>2614federalism & separation of pow,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-andy-warh
Following oral arguments on October 12, Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the respondent (Goldsmith), joined us to break down the case.

Featuring:
- Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51612606Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:47:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit between rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation regarding Warhol's works based on Goldsmith's photo of the musician Prince. The fair use doctrine excuses from liability...
Following oral arguments on October 12, Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the respondent (Goldsmith), joined us to break down the case.

Featuring:
- Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law]]>2188intellectual property,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/energy-security-after-ukraine-what-are-t
Featuring:

--Prof. James Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
--George Fibbe, Partner, Baker Botts, Former Deputy General Counsel, Department of Energy
--Moderator: Daniel G. West, Vice President, SCF Partners]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51555464Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRussia’s invasion of Ukraine shocked the world – and directed renewed attention to the global energy system. Suddenly, the topic of energy security rose to the forefront as consumers across the globe began to feel the impact of the conflict when...
Featuring:

--Prof. James Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
--George Fibbe, Partner, Baker Botts, Former Deputy General Counsel, Department of Energy
--Moderator: Daniel G. West, Vice President, SCF Partners]]>3916cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sackett-vJoin us for a discussion on this important case with Damien Schiff (arguing for petitioners), Tony Francois (represented petitioners in the Ninth Circuit), and William Snape (Director of the American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Environment and Energy Law). The panel will be moderated by Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Matt Leopold, who served previously as EPA general counsel and assisted in drafting the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule defining WOTUS.
Featuring:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. William Snape, Director of Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of Law
Moderator: Matt Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51500936Fri, 07 Oct 2022 17:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOne of the longest-standing environmental law challenges is how to define the scope of waters regulated under the Clean Water Act known as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). After decades of regulatory uncertainty, the Supreme Court...Join us for a discussion on this important case with Damien Schiff (arguing for petitioners), Tony Francois (represented petitioners in the Ninth Circuit), and William Snape (Director of the American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Environment and Energy Law). The panel will be moderated by Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Matt Leopold, who served previously as EPA general counsel and assisted in drafting the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule defining WOTUS.
Featuring:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. William Snape, Director of Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of Law
Moderator: Matt Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth
---
To register, click the link above.]]>3927cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-2022-mike-lewis-memorial-teleforum-p
Mike Lewis was a naval aviator, and then a renowned law professor, widely admired by other scholars and practitioners. He was a great friend of the Federalist Society, appearing at dozens of lawyer and student chapter events, as well as the 2014 National Convention. He was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds a Teleforum in his honor.

Featuring:

--Prof. Lucas Kello, Associate Professor of International Relations, Oxford University
--Prof. Eric Jensen, Associate Professor of Law, Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School
--Moderator: Vince Vitkowsky, Partner, Gfeller Laurie LLP

—]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51444116Sun, 02 Oct 2022 15:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFaced with relentless cyberattacks and intrusions that could imperil democracy, how should Western nations respond? This teleforum will discuss problems in the application of existing law and norms to reduce international cyber conflict. It will also...
Mike Lewis was a naval aviator, and then a renowned law professor, widely admired by other scholars and practitioners. He was a great friend of the Federalist Society, appearing at dozens of lawyer and student chapter events, as well as the 2014 National Convention. He was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds a Teleforum in his honor.

Featuring:

--Prof. Lucas Kello, Associate Professor of International Relations, Oxford University
--Prof. Eric Jensen, Associate Professor of Law, Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School
--Moderator: Vince Vitkowsky, Partner, Gfeller Laurie LLP

—]]>3559cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/digital-discrimination-under-the-infrast
Watch this discussion on the FCC's ongoing efforts to effectuate this portion of the statute and how policymakers can best achieve the goal of equitable broadband deployment. The discussion considered what discrimination means in this context, whether broadband providers engage in it, and what regulatory actions would best ensure Americans have access to the broadband they need.

Featuring:

--Diana Eisner, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy, USTelecom
--Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
--Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director, United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
--Sanford Williams, Special Advisor to Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Deputy Managing Director, The Office of the Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission
--Moderator: Joe Kane, Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51396822Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice to "ensure that Federal policies promote equal access to robust broadband internet access service by prohibiting deployment...
Watch this discussion on the FCC's ongoing efforts to effectuate this portion of the statute and how policymakers can best achieve the goal of equitable broadband deployment. The discussion considered what discrimination means in this context, whether broadband providers engage in it, and what regulatory actions would best ensure Americans have access to the broadband they need.

Featuring:

--Diana Eisner, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy, USTelecom
--Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
--Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director, United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
--Sanford Williams, Special Advisor to Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Deputy Managing Director, The Office of the Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission
--Moderator: Joe Kane, Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]]>3099administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/who-decides-if-january-6-was-an-insurrec
Who has the authority to enforce this provision, the states or Congress? Normally states cannot add requirements for holding public office, but is this different, or is enforcement left to Congress itself through its ability to expel members?

These questions took on new relevance on September 6, 2022, when New Mexico Judge Francis Mathew ordered that Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office effective immediately for his participation in the January 6 riot under the Disqualification Clause. While this decision is likely to be appealed, it could have serious implications for members of Congress and/or former President Donald J. Trump.

Watch a discussion on these important issues between James Bopp, Jr., who represented Congressman Madison Cawthorn against challenges to his office under the Disqualification Clause, and Pressly Millen, who represented the challengers to Congressman Cawthorn. That challenge was mooted after Congressman Cawthorn failed to win his primary, leaving the underlying questions unanswered. Joining Mr. Bopp and Mr. Millen will be Kory Langhofer, who successfully represented Congressman Andy Biggs before the Arizona Supreme Court on a Disqualification Clause challenge, and moderator Devin Watkins, an Attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Featuring:

--James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
--Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft
--Pressly M. Millen, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
--Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51395900Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Fourteenth Amendment prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States after swearing an oath to support the Constitution from ever holding public office again. In light of this Disqualification Clause, some...
Who has the authority to enforce this provision, the states or Congress? Normally states cannot add requirements for holding public office, but is this different, or is enforcement left to Congress itself through its ability to expel members?

These questions took on new relevance on September 6, 2022, when New Mexico Judge Francis Mathew ordered that Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office effective immediately for his participation in the January 6 riot under the Disqualification Clause. While this decision is likely to be appealed, it could have serious implications for members of Congress and/or former President Donald J. Trump.

Watch a discussion on these important issues between James Bopp, Jr., who represented Congressman Madison Cawthorn against challenges to his office under the Disqualification Clause, and Pressly Millen, who represented the challengers to Congressman Cawthorn. That challenge was mooted after Congressman Cawthorn failed to win his primary, leaving the underlying questions unanswered. Joining Mr. Bopp and Mr. Millen will be Kory Langhofer, who successfully represented Congressman Andy Biggs before the Arizona Supreme Court on a Disqualification Clause challenge, and moderator Devin Watkins, an Attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Featuring:

--James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
--Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft
--Pressly M. Millen, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
--Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>3620article i initiative,constitution,federalism & separation of pow,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/answering-threats-to-taiwan-where-does-l
Featuring:

--Michael Mazza, Nonresident Fellow, AEI
--Mary Kissel, Executive Vice President and Senior Policy Advisor, Stephens, Inc.
--Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
--Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51308699Mon, 19 Sep 2022 13:09:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe government of Communist China has insisted – and the U.S. government has officially acknowledged since 1979 – that Taiwan is part of China. Does that mean international law imposes no limits on Chinese coercion or intimidation of Taiwan? Do U.S....
Featuring:

--Michael Mazza, Nonresident Fellow, AEI
--Mary Kissel, Executive Vice President and Senior Policy Advisor, Stephens, Inc.
--Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
--Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3690cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-original-meaning-of-the-fourteenth-a
Featuring:

--Professor Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University
--Professor Christopher R. Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51202781Fri, 09 Sep 2022 17:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe past few years have witnessed a flurry of new scholarship related to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its associated citizenship declarations. Evan Bernick, a professor at...
Featuring:

--Professor Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University
--Professor Christopher R. Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law]]>3640cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/religious-liberty-at-the-supreme-court-2
Featuring:
--Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President & CEO, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University
--Moderator: Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51105677Thu, 01 Sep 2022 14:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join these experts as they review religious liberty at the Supreme Court in 2022. Featuring: --Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President & CEO, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty,...
Featuring:
--Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President & CEO, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University
--Moderator: Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology]]>3524cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-reges-v-univ-of-washin
The University's administrators later concluded that the professor's viewpoint was “offensive” and “inappropriate,” and created a "shadow" section of Professor Reges's class. The school next launched an investigation of the professor under a policy that prohibits “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” speech. The investigation has been ongoing since March 2, 2022, and carries the threat of termination.

On July 13, 2022, Reges sued University of Washington officials to challenge the investigation and punishment as viewpoint discriminatory, and the policy as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Representing Reges is Josh Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who joins us to discuss the status of the case.

Featuring:

--Joshua Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fund Fellow, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51065227Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:31:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyStuart Reges is an award-winning professor at the University of Washington in the Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. The Allen School encourages professors to include on their syllabi a statement recognizing that the land on which the...
The University's administrators later concluded that the professor's viewpoint was “offensive” and “inappropriate,” and created a "shadow" section of Professor Reges's class. The school next launched an investigation of the professor under a policy that prohibits “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” speech. The investigation has been ongoing since March 2, 2022, and carries the threat of termination.

On July 13, 2022, Reges sued University of Washington officials to challenge the investigation and punishment as viewpoint discriminatory, and the policy as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Representing Reges is Josh Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who joins us to discuss the status of the case.

Featuring:

--Joshua Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fund Fellow, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression]]>2173cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/do-university-diversity-statement-requir
Join our experts in a discussion on Professor Brian Soucek’s recent article in the UC Davis Law Review about these diversity statements fleshing out the criticisms and developing a framework to address if universities can require diversity statements without violating either the Constitution or academic freedom.

Featuring:

--Professor Brian Soucek, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Fellow, UC Davis School of Law
--Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51065352Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent years, universities have increasingly required 'diversity statements' from faculty seeking jobs, tenure, or promotion. But statements describing faculty's contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion are also increasingly under attack....
Join our experts in a discussion on Professor Brian Soucek’s recent article in the UC Davis Law Review about these diversity statements fleshing out the criticisms and developing a framework to address if universities can require diversity statements without violating either the Constitution or academic freedom.

Featuring:

--Professor Brian Soucek, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Fellow, UC Davis School of Law
--Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law]]>3766civil rights,education policy,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-faust-v-vilsack-race-d
These lawsuits challenge the extent to which the government can prefer one racial group over another based on allegations of generalized societal or industry discrimination. Prior litigation had addressed allegations of particularized discrimination by the government against black farmers but this more traditional focus on discrimination and tailored remedy was thought by the administration to be inadequate. How should courts respond?


Featuring:

--Rick M. Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
--Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51065087Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging allegedly unconstitutional race discrimination in the American Rescue Plan’s provision to offer loan forgiveness based on racial categories. The plaintiffs...
These lawsuits challenge the extent to which the government can prefer one racial group over another based on allegations of generalized societal or industry discrimination. Prior litigation had addressed allegations of particularized discrimination by the government against black farmers but this more traditional focus on discrimination and tailored remedy was thought by the administration to be inadequate. How should courts respond?


Featuring:

--Rick M. Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
--Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>2471cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-created-equal-clarenc
Co-editor Mark Paoletta joined us for a discussion of one of our most interesting justices. Mr. Paoletta served as a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office in the George H.W. Bush administration and worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas. He is a partner at Schaerr-Jaffe.

Featuring:
--Mark Paoletta, Partner, Schaerr-Jaffe]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50865483Tue, 09 Aug 2022 18:12:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyMark Paoletta and Michael Pack have co-edited a new book, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, which is a follow-on project of Michael Pack’s very successful 2020 documentary of the same name. In making the film, Pack interviewed Justice...
Co-editor Mark Paoletta joined us for a discussion of one of our most interesting justices. Mr. Paoletta served as a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office in the George H.W. Bush administration and worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas. He is a partner at Schaerr-Jaffe.

Featuring:
--Mark Paoletta, Partner, Schaerr-Jaffe]]>3234cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-oklahoma-v-casJustice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:

David Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jason Manion, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50865387Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:58:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. The Court held that the federal government and the state have...Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:

David Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jason Manion, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig]]>3438cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-future-of-chevron-deference-at-the-s
This panel analyzes what's next for Chevron, with a particular focus on what Chevron's conspicuous absence in the Court's opinions this term might mean for the doctrine's future.

Featuring:
--Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
--Yaakov M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50865328Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:49:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court decided multiple administrative law cases this term, but in no majority opinion did the Court cite its landmark 1984 precedent Chevron v. NRDC. The lack of citation to Chevron raises an important question: Is the Court ignoring the...
This panel analyzes what's next for Chevron, with a particular focus on what Chevron's conspicuous absence in the Court's opinions this term might mean for the doctrine's future.

Featuring:
--Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
--Yaakov M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy]]>3438cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-biden-v-texasIn a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), an immigration enforcement program put in place under the Trump administration.
Under MPP (colloquially known as "Remain in Mexico"), many individuals seeking asylum in the United States after entering via the southern border were sent back to Mexico to await their court dates. Soon after taking office President Biden sought to end the program, but the administration was ordered to continue enforcing the Protocols by a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Please join Professor Ilya Somin as he breaks down the ruling and its implications for immigration policy and administrative law.
Featuring:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
---
To register, please click the link above]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50865296Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:44:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Biden v. Texas. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), an immigration enforcement program put in place under the Trump...In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), an immigration enforcement program put in place under the Trump administration.
Under MPP (colloquially known as "Remain in Mexico"), many individuals seeking asylum in the United States after entering via the southern border were sent back to Mexico to await their court dates. Soon after taking office President Biden sought to end the program, but the administration was ordered to continue enforcing the Protocols by a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Please join Professor Ilya Somin as he breaks down the ruling and its implications for immigration policy and administrative law.
Featuring:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
---
To register, please click the link above]]>1926cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-west-vThis case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.
Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:

David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50865173Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:37:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide...This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.
Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:

David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.]]>3762cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-future-of-homemade-firearms-the-lega
To some, this represents a loophole in America’s gun laws. Others see this as a modern innovation in the tradition of home gun building that has always existed in America.

The Biden Administration shares the former view. On April 11, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Among other measures, this rule changes the ATF’s definition of “firearm frame or receiver” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968, greatly expanding the list of what is considered a firearm by the agency, and therefore what can be strictly regulated under existing federal law. Furthermore, both houses of Congress currently have bills before them designed to increase the regulation of homemade firearms, and to ban certain types of these so-called “ghost guns”.

In this timely webinar, our experts will cover the ATF’s Final Rule, set to go into effect on August 24, 2022, and will discuss the legal and political implications surrounding homemade firearms and the regulation thereof.

Featuring:
--Matthew Larosiere, Director of Legal Policy at Firearms Policy Coalition
--Dru Stevenson, Wayne Fisher Research Professor, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
--Moderator: Ryan Lacey, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50740334Thu, 28 Jul 2022 18:41:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmericans have been privately manufacturing and assembling firearms since before this country’s founding. Now, thanks to the prevalence of commercially available firearm parts, “buy, build, shoot” kits, and 3D printers, it is easier than ever to...
To some, this represents a loophole in America’s gun laws. Others see this as a modern innovation in the tradition of home gun building that has always existed in America.

The Biden Administration shares the former view. On April 11, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Among other measures, this rule changes the ATF’s definition of “firearm frame or receiver” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968, greatly expanding the list of what is considered a firearm by the agency, and therefore what can be strictly regulated under existing federal law. Furthermore, both houses of Congress currently have bills before them designed to increase the regulation of homemade firearms, and to ban certain types of these so-called “ghost guns”.

In this timely webinar, our experts will cover the ATF’s Final Rule, set to go into effect on August 24, 2022, and will discuss the legal and political implications surrounding homemade firearms and the regulation thereof.

Featuring:
--Matthew Larosiere, Director of Legal Policy at Firearms Policy Coalition
--Dru Stevenson, Wayne Fisher Research Professor, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
--Moderator: Ryan Lacey, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>3640cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-state-legislatures-staThat is what happened in Moore v. Harper, which the Supreme Court will hear in its upcoming term. Recently North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court’s own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections.
Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself. Their Exhibit A: the Trump campaign’s failed strategy to convince state legislatures to overrule voters in the 2020 presidential election.
This webinar will provide an overview of the legal debate, background on the Moore case, and discussion of the key issues and controversies that the Court will confront.
Featuring:
Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm’s Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute
---
To register, click the link above]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50740328Thu, 28 Jul 2022 18:39:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWho decides the rules for federal elections? The Constitution generally assigns that power to the “Legislature” of each state, but state courts are playing an increasing role. Recent elections have witnessed an increase in decisions...That is what happened in Moore v. Harper, which the Supreme Court will hear in its upcoming term. Recently North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court’s own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections.
Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself. Their Exhibit A: the Trump campaign’s failed strategy to convince state legislatures to overrule voters in the 2020 presidential election.
This webinar will provide an overview of the legal debate, background on the Moore case, and discussion of the key issues and controversies that the Court will confront.
Featuring:
Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm’s Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute
---
To register, click the link above]]>3731cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-the-eeoc-misusing-the-freedom-of-info
Featuring:

--Janet Dhillon, Commissioner, EEOC
--Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50740296Thu, 28 Jul 2022 18:37:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe EEOC is denying employers’ FOIA requests for the EEOC’s charge investigation files when resulting employment claims are proceeding in arbitration rather than litigation. Our panel will discuss whether the EEOC’s justifications for denying such...
Featuring:

--Janet Dhillon, Commissioner, EEOC
--Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart]]>2478cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-response-to-ten-years-on-the-america-i
Featuring:

--Prof. Thomas D. Grant, Senior Research Fellow (Wolfson College); Fellow (Lauterpacht Centre for International Law), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
--Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School
--Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50740288Thu, 28 Jul 2022 18:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us on July 27 to hear three experts give a response to our April 26th event on The America Invents Act and the role of Patent Trial and Appeal Board in resolving patent disputes. Featuring: --Prof. Thomas D. Grant, Senior Research Fellow...
Featuring:

--Prof. Thomas D. Grant, Senior Research Fellow (Wolfson College); Fellow (Lauterpacht Centre for International Law), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
--Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School
--Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)]]>3794cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/consumers-research-v-fcc-and-the-legalit
Featuring:

Robert Frieden, Emeritus Professor of Telecommunications and Law, Penn State University
Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute
Michael Romano, Sr. VP of Industry Affairs and Business Development, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association
Moderator: Arielle Roth, Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senator Roy Blunt]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50729781Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:46:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith billions of dollars allocated to broadband funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the future of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) is a hotly debated topic. Now, with multiple lawsuits challenging the very legality of the USF...
Featuring:

Robert Frieden, Emeritus Professor of Telecommunications and Law, Penn State University
Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute
Michael Romano, Sr. VP of Industry Affairs and Business Development, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association
Moderator: Arielle Roth, Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senator Roy Blunt]]>3622cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/are-irs-defenses-crumbling
Some contend that the IRS’s ability to defend itself against these challenges seems to be vanishing as one after another the IRS has lost a string of recent challenges to its guidance. A recent blog post summarizes some of these defeats.

Our speakers will discuss them in more detail, along with what they might portend for how the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department issue future guidance. Another direction to watch is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: will Congress begin to do a better job drafting laws and providing instructions and guidance about how they are to be implemented, administered, and enforced?

Featuring:
--Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
--Gilbert Rothenberg, Adjunct Professor of Law, American University's Washington College of Law and the University of Pennsylvania's Carey Law School
--Interlocutor: Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
--Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50729765Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:45:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe continuous stream of regulations and other guidance the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) must publish to inform the public how it is going to implement, administer, and enforce the frequent, numerous, and complicated changes to the tax laws, along...
Some contend that the IRS’s ability to defend itself against these challenges seems to be vanishing as one after another the IRS has lost a string of recent challenges to its guidance. A recent blog post summarizes some of these defeats.

Our speakers will discuss them in more detail, along with what they might portend for how the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department issue future guidance. Another direction to watch is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: will Congress begin to do a better job drafting laws and providing instructions and guidance about how they are to be implemented, administered, and enforced?

Featuring:
--Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
--Gilbert Rothenberg, Adjunct Professor of Law, American University's Washington College of Law and the University of Pennsylvania's Carey Law School
--Interlocutor: Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
--Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>3814administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/liar-liar-false-statements-and-the-freed
In response to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021 and President Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen, the governor of Washington State proposed a law punishing false speech that was likely to lead to violence. Elsewhere controversies surrounding the truth of COVID-related information have arisen and the Biden Administration's Department of Homeland Security had planned to create a board to counter disinformation. Amid free-speech outcries, the proposal was set aside, but the Administration remains focused on combating disinformation. This program will feature panelists with contrasting views of the government's authority in this field and whether efforts to limit false speech represent a threat to First Amendment values.

Featuring:

--Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
--Catherine Ross, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
--Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
--Moderator: Hon. Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50729776Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:44:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat can the government do to counter "disinformation" or other statements that it believes to be false? The Supreme Court famously protected some false defamatory statements in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and extended that holding, in United...
In response to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021 and President Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen, the governor of Washington State proposed a law punishing false speech that was likely to lead to violence. Elsewhere controversies surrounding the truth of COVID-related information have arisen and the Biden Administration's Department of Homeland Security had planned to create a board to counter disinformation. Amid free-speech outcries, the proposal was set aside, but the Administration remains focused on combating disinformation. This program will feature panelists with contrasting views of the government's authority in this field and whether efforts to limit false speech represent a threat to First Amendment values.

Featuring:

--Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
--Catherine Ross, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
--Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
--Moderator: Hon. Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission]]>3743free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-discussion-on-dobbs
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case.

Featuring:

--Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul Stevens
--Carrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence Thomas
--Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
--Host: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50536537Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:05:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join the Federalist Society's Practice Groups for a virtual event on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided this case in a 6-3 decision. The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the...
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case.

Featuring:

--Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul Stevens
--Carrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence Thomas
--Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
--Host: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>3484cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/private-sector-diversity-programs-perks-
Should preferences for race or sex be unlawful in the context of hiring, promotions, professional opportunities or contracting?

How should diversity and inclusion officers navigate legal precedent in this area? Is diversity training helpful in the existing legal environment? Does functionally eliminating diversity training via government action benefit the public or create new pitfalls?

Featuring:
--Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the --Center for Civil Rights, Uniersity of North Carolina School of Law
--Jonathan Berry, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
--Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50500479Thu, 07 Jul 2022 18:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIt is growing practice within the business community to engage in diversity initiatives in hiring, promotion, and outside contracting. A network of interrelated state and federal laws and regulations including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of...
Should preferences for race or sex be unlawful in the context of hiring, promotions, professional opportunities or contracting?

How should diversity and inclusion officers navigate legal precedent in this area? Is diversity training helpful in the existing legal environment? Does functionally eliminating diversity training via government action benefit the public or create new pitfalls?

Featuring:
--Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the --Center for Civil Rights, Uniersity of North Carolina School of Law
--Jonathan Berry, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
--Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]]>3600cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/does-the-federal-energy-regulatory-commi
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC’s statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.

Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.

In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.

Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? Join us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question.

Featuring:
--Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
--J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50498887Thu, 07 Jul 2022 16:19:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Biden administration has pledged to meet what it calls “the accelerating threat of climate change” with a wide-ranging campaign to discourage the production and use of fossil fuels in order to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other...
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC’s statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.

Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.

In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.

Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? Join us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question.

Featuring:
--Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
--J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia]]>3643cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/state-constitutions-and-individual-liberThe panelists will address the different purposes and rights guarantees within state constitutions and the federal constitution. What are the federalism implications of an increased focus on state constitutional rights, if that's really the trend? What does the map of states look like if some federal liberties roll back, and does the distribution depend on which rights roll back or expand. These topics and more will be explored by this excellent panel of knowledgeable state constitutional law experts.
Featuring:

David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Robert F. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Center for State Constitutional Studies, Rutgers University of School of Law
[Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation

Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50473856Tue, 05 Jul 2022 20:27:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for a discussion between David A. Carrillo, Christina Sandefur, and Robert F. Williams moderated by Braden Boucek on Thursday, June 23 at 4:00 PM ET / 1:00 PM PT. The panelists will address the different purposes and rights guarantees within...The panelists will address the different purposes and rights guarantees within state constitutions and the federal constitution. What are the federalism implications of an increased focus on state constitutional rights, if that's really the trend? What does the map of states look like if some federal liberties roll back, and does the distribution depend on which rights roll back or expand. These topics and more will be explored by this excellent panel of knowledgeable state constitutional law experts.
Featuring:

David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Robert F. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Center for State Constitutional Studies, Rutgers University of School of Law
[Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation

Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.]]>3685administrative law & regulatio,constitution,regulatory transparency projec,state constitutions,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-use-of-race-in-the-biden-harris-admihttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/50473765Tue, 05 Jul 2022 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySince taking office in January 2021, the Biden Administration and its Executive Branch agencies have embraced the use of race in federal programs. From COVID-19 relief to other federal subsidies, the Biden Administration has purported to advance...3610civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/are-we-still-one-people-do-we-hold-these
Political divisions, often bitter, however, have existed since the Founding. But how can we know whether the so-called Divided America is something new, something traditional that has become more noticeable due to the ease of spreading information, or maybe a combination of the two?

Join us for a special webinar presentation from Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.

Featuring:
--Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50473873Tue, 05 Jul 2022 18:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyMuch has been written, published and broadcast about a Divided America—especially now, with the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Political divisions, often bitter, however, have existed since the Founding. But how can we know whether the...
Political divisions, often bitter, however, have existed since the Founding. But how can we know whether the so-called Divided America is something new, something traditional that has become more noticeable due to the ease of spreading information, or maybe a combination of the two?

Join us for a special webinar presentation from Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.

Featuring:
--Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>4595constitution,the practice groupscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-dobbs-
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Featuring:
--Allyson Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Societyy]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50473785Tue, 05 Jul 2022 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not...
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Featuring:
--Allyson Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Societyy]]>3646cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-new-york-state
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in the first major case on firearms regulation that the Court has considered in over a decade.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for the future of firearm regulation in America.


Featuring:
--Prof. Mark W. Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law in the Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50378649Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:25:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s handgun licensing law that required New Yorkers to demonstrate a “proper cause” in order to be...
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in the first major case on firearms regulation that the Court has considered in over a decade.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for the future of firearm regulation in America.


Featuring:
--Prof. Mark W. Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law in the Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law]]>2031civil rights,criminal law & procedure,litigation,second amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/due-process-protections-in-agency-enforc_1
On April 2, 2021, DOT rescinded these rules without the opportunity for public comment. Thereafter Polyweave Packaging inc., a company that had been issued a civil penalty order by DOT over alleged regulatory violations, filed suit against DOT claiming the agency violated its due process rights by revoking the Bradbury Memo rules.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of DOT, the case has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were on May 5, 2022.

Please join this litigation update of Polyweave Packaging v. Buttigieg as our experts discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for administrative rulemaking and due process.

Featuring:

--Hon. Steven Bradbury, Attorney; Former General Counsel, Department of Transportation

--Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

--Moderator: Hon. Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50189061Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:17:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn February of 2019, then General Counsel of the Department of Transportation (DOT), Steven Bradbury, issued a memo later dubbed the "Bradbury Memo" that addressed concerns about civil enforcement abuse at the agency. Parts of the memo were...
On April 2, 2021, DOT rescinded these rules without the opportunity for public comment. Thereafter Polyweave Packaging inc., a company that had been issued a civil penalty order by DOT over alleged regulatory violations, filed suit against DOT claiming the agency violated its due process rights by revoking the Bradbury Memo rules.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of DOT, the case has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were on May 5, 2022.

Please join this litigation update of Polyweave Packaging v. Buttigieg as our experts discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for administrative rulemaking and due process.

Featuring:

--Hon. Steven Bradbury, Attorney; Former General Counsel, Department of Transportation

--Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

--Moderator: Hon. Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice]]>3602cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-future-of-universal-service-after-th
Featuring:
--Patrick Halley, SVP, Policy & Advocacy and General Counsel, USTelecom
--Alexander Minard, Vice President & State Legislative Counsel, NCTA
--Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate and General Counsel, INCOMPAS
--Dr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
--Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50111409Tue, 07 Jun 2022 19:34:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which commits approximately $65 billion towards broadband expansion. Wisely, Section 60104(c) of the Act directs the Federal Communications Commission to submit to...
Featuring:
--Patrick Halley, SVP, Policy & Advocacy and General Counsel, USTelecom
--Alexander Minard, Vice President & State Legislative Counsel, NCTA
--Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate and General Counsel, INCOMPAS
--Dr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
--Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>3596cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/crypto-wars-balancing-privacy-versus-nat
This very timely panel will discuss whether the US can develop policies on digital assets that both protect freedom and privacy and maintain our safety from bad actors, and what the trade-offs with the dollar’s international role might be.

Featuring:
--Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Co-Chair, Actum LLC; Former Director, Office of Management and Budget
--Hon. Kathy Kraninger, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Solidus Labs; Former Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
--Michele Korver, Head of Regulatory, a16z Crypto
--Norbert Michel, Vice President and Director, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute
--Moderator: Dina Ellis Rochkind, Counsel, Government Affairs and Strategy, Paul Hastings]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50189636Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySenior officials in the Administration have expressed concern about cryptocurrencies being used for criminal activity and undermining the dollar as the global reserve currency. These concerns have been heightened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine,...
This very timely panel will discuss whether the US can develop policies on digital assets that both protect freedom and privacy and maintain our safety from bad actors, and what the trade-offs with the dollar’s international role might be.

Featuring:
--Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Co-Chair, Actum LLC; Former Director, Office of Management and Budget
--Hon. Kathy Kraninger, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Solidus Labs; Former Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
--Michele Korver, Head of Regulatory, a16z Crypto
--Norbert Michel, Vice President and Director, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute
--Moderator: Dina Ellis Rochkind, Counsel, Government Affairs and Strategy, Paul Hastings]]>3577cryptocurrency,financial services,financial services & e-commerc,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-morganJustice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.
Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for these parties and other litigation parties going forward.
Featuring:

Erika Birg, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Richard D. Faulkner, FCIArb., Arbitrator, Attorney & Former Professor of ADR Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50188967Wed, 01 Jun 2022 17:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Morgan v. Sundance. In a rare 9-0 decision, the Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that federal courts may not adopt an...Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.
Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for these parties and other litigation parties going forward.
Featuring:

Erika Birg, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Richard D. Faulkner, FCIArb., Arbitrator, Attorney & Former Professor of ADR Law]]>2549cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/issue-update-critical-race-theory-legisl
On the state level, state education standards, "book banning", and legislation pertaining to curriculum transparency, “action civics,” and “diversity statements” will be discussed. Moves to control educational content at the federal level through grantmaking will also be covered.

Featuring:
--Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50188849Wed, 01 Jun 2022 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis webinar will explore issues raised by the raft of state and federal initiatives on Critical Race Theory and related topics. Issues will include the scope of state authority over the content of education, with special attention to differences...
On the state level, state education standards, "book banning", and legislation pertaining to curriculum transparency, “action civics,” and “diversity statements” will be discussed. Moves to control educational content at the federal level through grantmaking will also be covered.

Featuring:
--Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center]]>3675civil rights,education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-cummings-v-premier-reha
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that emotional damages are not recoverable in a private action under either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. The majority opinion was penned by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for disabilities law going forward.

Featuring:

--Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50016177Tue, 31 May 2022 20:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 28, 2022, The U.S. Supreme Court decided Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. The case involved the availability of emotional damages for discrimination on the basis of disability and, more generally, the scope of recoverable damages for...
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that emotional damages are not recoverable in a private action under either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. The majority opinion was penned by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for disabilities law going forward.

Featuring:

--Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>1310cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/due-process-protections-in-agency-enforcOn April 2, 2021, DOT rescinded these rules without the opportunity for public comment. Thereafter Polyweave Packaging inc., a company that had been issued a civil penalty order by DOT over alleged regulatory violations, filed suit against DOT claiming the agency violated its due process rights by revoking the Bradbury Memo rules.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of DOT, the case has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were on May 5, 2022.
Please join this litigation update of Polyweave Packaging v. Buttigieg as our experts discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for administrative rulemaking and due process.
Featuring:
Hon. Steven Bradbury, Attorney; Former General Counsel, Department of Transportation
Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Hon. Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
---
To register, click the link above]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50189055Tue, 31 May 2022 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn February of 2019, then General Counsel of the Department of Transportation (DOT), Steven Bradbury, issued a memo later dubbed the "Bradbury Memo" that addressed concerns about civil enforcement abuse at the agency. Parts of the memo were...On April 2, 2021, DOT rescinded these rules without the opportunity for public comment. Thereafter Polyweave Packaging inc., a company that had been issued a civil penalty order by DOT over alleged regulatory violations, filed suit against DOT claiming the agency violated its due process rights by revoking the Bradbury Memo rules.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of DOT, the case has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were on May 5, 2022.
Please join this litigation update of Polyweave Packaging v. Buttigieg as our experts discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for administrative rulemaking and due process.
Featuring:
Hon. Steven Bradbury, Attorney; Former General Counsel, Department of Transportation
Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Hon. Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
---
To register, click the link above]]>3567administrative law & regulatio,due processcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/from-russia-without-love-u-s-energy-poli
Featuring:
--Tristan Abbey, President of Comarus Analytics LLC
--Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP
--Julia Olson, Executive Director at Our Children's Trust; Chief Legal Counsel for plaintiffs in Juliana v. U.S.
--Moderator: Hon. Ryan Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49960766Thu, 26 May 2022 21:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe United States is – perhaps now more than ever before – a global energy powerhouse. From oil and gas production to the expansion of new energy technologies, the United States has made gains in achieving long-heralded calls for energy independence...
Featuring:
--Tristan Abbey, President of Comarus Analytics LLC
--Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP
--Julia Olson, Executive Director at Our Children's Trust; Chief Legal Counsel for plaintiffs in Juliana v. U.S.
--Moderator: Hon. Ryan Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit]]>3594cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/college-admissions-fair-or-fixed Featuring:
Art Coleman, Managing Partner and Co-Founder, EducationCounsel
Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm
Moderator: Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49958419Thu, 26 May 2022 18:21:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs the Supreme Court prepares to hear two cases this fall that challenge race preferential admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, questions have arisen about how colleges typically use race preferences and... Featuring:
Art Coleman, Managing Partner and Co-Founder, EducationCounsel
Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm
Moderator: Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
---
To register, click the link above.]]>3710cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-government-s-arms-around-cryptocurre
Will regulation be designed to avoid discouraging innovation in a highly creative environment? Fears have been expressed that unregulated cryptocurrency could theoretically present systemic risk, and consumers may need to be protected--particularly in light of the recent collapse of the Luna cryptocurrency and its related Terra stablecoin. Some believe that regulation may be an opportunity to include those presently unserved by the banking system. Complicating this already complicated picture may be rivalry among multiple federal agencies, including the banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, each of which may make a case for potential authority over aspects of the cryptocurrency industry. Our panel of experts will address these timely and controversial questions.

Featuring:
--Douglas Elliott, Partner, Oliver Wyaman
--Michael Piwowar, Executive Director, Milken Institute Center for Financial Markets
--Dawn Stump, Former Commissioner, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
--Thomas Vartanian, Executive Director, Financial Technology & Cybersecurity Center
--Moderator: Paul N. Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners

Related:
Central Bank Digital Currency--Efficient Innovation or the End of the Private Banking System?

---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49925633Tue, 24 May 2022 16:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs the cryptocurrency industry grows, state and federal governments are considering how that industry should be regulated. The President has directed the Secretary of the Treasury to report soon on the issues involved. A draft bill that would...
Will regulation be designed to avoid discouraging innovation in a highly creative environment? Fears have been expressed that unregulated cryptocurrency could theoretically present systemic risk, and consumers may need to be protected--particularly in light of the recent collapse of the Luna cryptocurrency and its related Terra stablecoin. Some believe that regulation may be an opportunity to include those presently unserved by the banking system. Complicating this already complicated picture may be rivalry among multiple federal agencies, including the banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, each of which may make a case for potential authority over aspects of the cryptocurrency industry. Our panel of experts will address these timely and controversial questions.

Featuring:
--Douglas Elliott, Partner, Oliver Wyaman
--Michael Piwowar, Executive Director, Milken Institute Center for Financial Markets
--Dawn Stump, Former Commissioner, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
--Thomas Vartanian, Executive Director, Financial Technology & Cybersecurity Center
--Moderator: Paul N. Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners

Related:
Central Bank Digital Currency--Efficient Innovation or the End of the Private Banking System?

---

To register, click the link above.]]>3744cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/hollywood-s-recent-best-picture-winner-s
Featuring:
--Eric Bolinder, Managing Policy Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation; Counsel, Cause of Action Institute
--John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49925234Tue, 24 May 2022 16:23:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA Hollywood depiction of the lives of fishermen tells a real life story about how Executive Branch overreach damages American families. Hear from two practitioners challenging the administrative state on these very regulations depicted in “Coda” and...
Featuring:
--Eric Bolinder, Managing Policy Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation; Counsel, Cause of Action Institute
--John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>3032cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/central-bank-digital-currency-efficient-
Featuring:

--Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
--Chris Giancarlo, Senior Counsel, Willkie Digital Works LLP; Former Chairman, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission
--Greg Baer, President & Chief Executive Officer, Bank Policy Institute
--Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, the Mises Institute

Related:
The Government’s Arms Around Cryptocurrency: Hug or Stranglehold?

---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49834682Tue, 17 May 2022 19:27:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyCentral Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) are the subject of a global debate. In one version, individuals and businesses would hold deposits directly with the central bank. Critics point out that the Federal Reserve would then control how these...
Featuring:

--Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
--Chris Giancarlo, Senior Counsel, Willkie Digital Works LLP; Former Chairman, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission
--Greg Baer, President & Chief Executive Officer, Bank Policy Institute
--Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, the Mises Institute

Related:
The Government’s Arms Around Cryptocurrency: Hug or Stranglehold?

---

To register, click the link above.]]>3678cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/how-the-largest-whistleblower-award-in-h
Featuring:

--David Kovel, Managing Partner, Kirby McInerney LLP
--Moderator: Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law

---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49834650Tue, 17 May 2022 19:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 21, 2021, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced a nearly $200 million whistleblower award, the largest in history. The award was related to more than $3 billion in sanctions by the CFTC and foreign regulators. The award, so...
Featuring:

--David Kovel, Managing Partner, Kirby McInerney LLP
--Moderator: Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law

---

To register, click the link above.]]>3528cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-hemphi
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:
--Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP and former United States Attorney, Southern District of Mississippi]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49834622Tue, 17 May 2022 19:23:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 20, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hemphill v. New York. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York, holding that the trial court’s admission—over Hemphill’s objection—of the...
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:
--Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP and former United States Attorney, Southern District of Mississippi]]>1263cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-determining-fi
Background

Thompson v. Clark was decided on April 4 with the Supreme Court holding Larry Thompson’s showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution. The majority rejected the dissenting view that an affirmative indication of innocence should be required. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the 6-3 opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.

Featuring:

--Vincent Stark, Bureau Chief, Legal Affairs Unit, Albany County District Attorney's Office
--Marie Miller, Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Moderator: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49834590Tue, 17 May 2022 19:21:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Thompson v. Clark, the plaintiff sought to bring a civil suit claiming he was the victim of a wrongful seizure after police allegedly entered his apartment without a warrant based on unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse. Thompson was charged...
Background

Thompson v. Clark was decided on April 4 with the Supreme Court holding Larry Thompson’s showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution. The majority rejected the dissenting view that an affirmative indication of innocence should be required. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the 6-3 opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.

Featuring:

--Vincent Stark, Bureau Chief, Legal Affairs Unit, Albany County District Attorney's Office
--Marie Miller, Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Moderator: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>3446cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-biden-administration-s-enhanced-poli
Former DOJ prosecutor Luke Cass and Britt Biles, who held former senior legal roles at the SEC, the White House, and the U.S. Small Business Administration will explain these policy shifts and discuss the risks for corporate America under this new era, additional priority enforcement areas for the Administration, and what these new policies mean for the future of corporate compliance.

Featuring:

--Luke Cass, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
--Britt Biles, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
--Moderator: Nicholas Marr, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49679293Thu, 05 May 2022 17:44:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast fall, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced significant changes to Department of Justice policies on corporate criminal enforcement, including the use of monitors, review of prior misconduct, and cooperation. As Monaco stated, "This is a...
Former DOJ prosecutor Luke Cass and Britt Biles, who held former senior legal roles at the SEC, the White House, and the U.S. Small Business Administration will explain these policy shifts and discuss the risks for corporate America under this new era, additional priority enforcement areas for the Administration, and what these new policies mean for the future of corporate compliance.

Featuring:

--Luke Cass, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
--Britt Biles, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
--Moderator: Nicholas Marr, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>2767cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/environmental-justice-property-rights-an
Featuring:
Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Randall O'Toole, Blogger, The Antiplanner
Richard Rothstein, Distinguished Fellow of the Economic Policy Institute and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Prof. Christopher Serkin, Elisabeth H. and Granville S. Ridley Jr. Chair in Law and Professor of Management at the Owen Graduate School of Management
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49678468Thu, 05 May 2022 16:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis panel will focus on the pros and cons of zoning, its relation to environmental justice, its detrimental (or beneficial) impacts on minorities, and its consistency (or inconsistency) with property rights. Importantly, the discussion will engage...
Featuring:
Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Randall O'Toole, Blogger, The Antiplanner
Richard Rothstein, Distinguished Fellow of the Economic Policy Institute and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Prof. Christopher Serkin, Elisabeth H. and Granville S. Ridley Jr. Chair in Law and Professor of Management at the Owen Graduate School of Management
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts]]>4931cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-badger
Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:

--Bradley Hubbard, Senior Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice -Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
--Elizabeth Kiernan, Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49659183Wed, 04 May 2022 20:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Badgerow v. Walters. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that Vaden’s “look-through” approach to determining...
Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:

--Bradley Hubbard, Senior Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice -Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
--Elizabeth Kiernan, Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher]]>1681cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ten-years-on-the-america-invents-act-and
Featuring:

--Joseph Matal, partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Haynes and Boone, LLP
--Paul Brian Taylor, who served over 20 years as Counsel and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He also served as Senior Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight.
--Moderator: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Former Congressman, United States House of Representatives]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49654799Wed, 04 May 2022 14:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But,...
Featuring:

--Joseph Matal, partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Haynes and Boone, LLP
--Paul Brian Taylor, who served over 20 years as Counsel and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He also served as Senior Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight.
--Moderator: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Former Congressman, United States House of Representatives]]>3603cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-k
Bremerton School District in Washington state removed Coach Joe Kennedy from his job as a public high school football coach after kneeling in brief, quiet prayer on the field after football games. Coach Kennedy filed suit alleging that the school district’s ban on “demonstrative religious activity” violated his First Amendment rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.

In 2019, on appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the petition for review, allowing further factual development. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, writing that the “Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future.”

This year, the Supreme Court granted cert on two questions concerning the interplay of the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses:

Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.
We will break down the argument on the same day, April 25, 2022.

Featuring:

--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

Note: Coach Kennedy is represented by Kirkland & Ellis and First Liberty Institute.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49587597Thu, 28 Apr 2022 19:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 25, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Bremerton School District in Washington state removed Coach Joe Kennedy from his job as a public high school football coach after kneeling in...
Bremerton School District in Washington state removed Coach Joe Kennedy from his job as a public high school football coach after kneeling in brief, quiet prayer on the field after football games. Coach Kennedy filed suit alleging that the school district’s ban on “demonstrative religious activity” violated his First Amendment rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.

In 2019, on appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the petition for review, allowing further factual development. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, writing that the “Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future.”

This year, the Supreme Court granted cert on two questions concerning the interplay of the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses:

Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.
We will break down the argument on the same day, April 25, 2022.

Featuring:

--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

Note: Coach Kennedy is represented by Kirkland & Ellis and First Liberty Institute.]]>2489cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-united_1
The Court held that the judge's conduct of voir dire conformed to its precedents and reversed the First Circuit's holding that the judge had violated a rule established by that circuit under its supervisor power. The Court held that courts of appeals have no power to circumvent or supplement legal standards established in Supreme Court precedents.

The Court also held that the judge was within his authority to exclude from the penalty trial hearsay evidence of Tsarnaev's brother's involvement in an unrelated murder. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires admission of all mitigating evidence no matter how dubious or how weakly mitigating.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:

--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49587580Thu, 28 Apr 2022 19:03:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vacated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's...
The Court held that the judge's conduct of voir dire conformed to its precedents and reversed the First Circuit's holding that the judge had violated a rule established by that circuit under its supervisor power. The Court held that courts of appeals have no power to circumvent or supplement legal standards established in Supreme Court precedents.

The Court also held that the judge was within his authority to exclude from the penalty trial hearsay evidence of Tsarnaev's brother's involvement in an unrelated murder. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires admission of all mitigating evidence no matter how dubious or how weakly mitigating.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:

--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation]]>875cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/judicial-ethics-in-the-modern-era
Featuring:

--Prof. Rebecca Roiphe, Trustee Professor of Law and Co-Dean for Faculty Scholarship, New York Law School
--Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School
--Prof. Michael I. Krauss, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49587562Thu, 28 Apr 2022 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the modern era, U.S. Supreme Court justices have been cited for what some critics characterize as “controversial” statements, sometimes relating to actual or potential matters before the Court. In some instances, these critiques have been...
Featuring:

--Prof. Rebecca Roiphe, Trustee Professor of Law and Co-Dean for Faculty Scholarship, New York Law School
--Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School
--Prof. Michael I. Krauss, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>3513cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ukraine-in-crisis
Featuring:

--Michael Allen, Managing Director, Beacon Global Strategies; Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counter-proliferation Strategy, National Security Council; Author, Blinking Red Light: Crisis and Compromise in American Intelligence after 9/11
--Prof. Angela Stent, Director, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies; Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
--Moderator: Matthew Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49587519Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:56:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA war is raging in Europe. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Arguing that Ukraine was controlled by nationalists and Nazis, Russia sought to seize major cities including the capitol, Kyiv, and trigger a regime change. After failures to...
Featuring:

--Michael Allen, Managing Director, Beacon Global Strategies; Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counter-proliferation Strategy, National Security Council; Author, Blinking Red Light: Crisis and Compromise in American Intelligence after 9/11
--Prof. Angela Stent, Director, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies; Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
--Moderator: Matthew Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute]]>3605cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/criminal-market-allocation-or-pro-compet
Our panel will include former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Barry Nigro, Co-Chair of the ABA Antitrust Section’s Cartel & Criminal Practice Committee Lindsey Vaala, former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Zach Terwilliger, and Pepper Crutcher, chair of the Labor and Employment practice group at the Federalist Society and partner at Balch & Bingham, who will wrangle our panel and serve as moderator.

Featuring:

--Barry Nigro, Partner, Fried Frank, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
--Lindsey Vaala, Counsel, Vinson & Elkins, and Co-Chair, ABA Antitrust Section's Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee
--Zach Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
--Moderator: Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham and Chairman, Labor & Employment Practice Group at the Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49559129Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyNo poaching allowed! No, you have not wandered into a Hunter’s Safety Forum, but rather an in depth discourse regarding the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division’s recent criminal investigations and prosecutions of “No Poach” conduct. These...
Our panel will include former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Barry Nigro, Co-Chair of the ABA Antitrust Section’s Cartel & Criminal Practice Committee Lindsey Vaala, former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Zach Terwilliger, and Pepper Crutcher, chair of the Labor and Employment practice group at the Federalist Society and partner at Balch & Bingham, who will wrangle our panel and serve as moderator.

Featuring:

--Barry Nigro, Partner, Fried Frank, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
--Lindsey Vaala, Counsel, Vinson & Elkins, and Co-Chair, ABA Antitrust Section's Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee
--Zach Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
--Moderator: Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham and Chairman, Labor & Employment Practice Group at the Federalist Society]]>3439cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-seat-at-the-sitting-april-2022

United States v. Washington (April 18) – workers’ compensation; state and federal law

Siegel v. Fitzgerald (April 18) – Bankruptcy Judgeship Act; Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

George v. McDonough (April 19) – veterans’ claims and Department of Veterans Affairs agency interpretation

Kemp v. United States (April 19) – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)

Vega v. Tekoh (April 20) – Habeas motions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and relief for Miranda violations

Kennedy v. Bremerton (April 25) – the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment

Nance v. Ward (April 25) – method of execution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 habeas motions

Biden v. Texas (April 26) – remain in Mexico immigration policy

Shoop v. Twyford (April 26) – the All Writs Act and habeas petitions

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (April 27) – Indian Law


Featuring:

--Noel J. Francisco, Partner-in-Charge Washington, Jones Day
--Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
--Aaron M. Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice, Baker Botts LLP
--Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
--Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49559096Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:17:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases that will be covered are included below. United States v. Washington (April 18) – workers’ compensation; state and...

United States v. Washington (April 18) – workers’ compensation; state and federal law

Siegel v. Fitzgerald (April 18) – Bankruptcy Judgeship Act; Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

George v. McDonough (April 19) – veterans’ claims and Department of Veterans Affairs agency interpretation

Kemp v. United States (April 19) – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)

Vega v. Tekoh (April 20) – Habeas motions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and relief for Miranda violations

Kennedy v. Bremerton (April 25) – the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment

Nance v. Ward (April 25) – method of execution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 habeas motions

Biden v. Texas (April 26) – remain in Mexico immigration policy

Shoop v. Twyford (April 26) – the All Writs Act and habeas petitions

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (April 27) – Indian Law


Featuring:

--Noel J. Francisco, Partner-in-Charge Washington, Jones Day
--Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
--Aaron M. Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice, Baker Botts LLP
--Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
--Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP]]>5034cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-john-fisher-and-thoma
Judge Conrad will join us to discuss his book, these two men, and the enduring relevance of their stories.

Featuring:

-- Hon. Robert Conrad, District Judge, Western District of North Carolina

-- Moderator: William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49483120Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:28:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his recent book John Fisher and Thomas More: Keeping Their Souls While Losing Their Heads, Robert Conrad, who serves as a federal district court judge in the Western District of North Carolina, details the lives, trials, and executions of two...
Judge Conrad will join us to discuss his book, these two men, and the enduring relevance of their stories.

Featuring:

-- Hon. Robert Conrad, District Judge, Western District of North Carolina

-- Moderator: William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology]]>3526cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/issue-update-woke-capital
Citing the related concerns of shareholders, the ACR Project demanded the public retraction of such policies by Coke last year — Coke acceded in all but name in March, declaring that the policies at issue “have not been and are not policy of the company[.]” The ACR Project has since made demands on behalf of shareholders to the officers and directo


rs of Lowe’s, Novartis, McDonald’s, and Starbucks. America First Legal appears to have taken a related tack this week in publicly demanding on behalf of shareholders that the Walt Disney Company’s officers and directors launch investigations into alleged violations of employee's civil rights.

Featuring:

Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project
---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49482910Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:06:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFollowing the prominent events of early 2020, as part of what’s often referred to as a national, racial reckoning, countless institutions altered their policies. Large publicly traded corporations (including Coca-Cola Company, Novartis AG,...
Citing the related concerns of shareholders, the ACR Project demanded the public retraction of such policies by Coke last year — Coke acceded in all but name in March, declaring that the policies at issue “have not been and are not policy of the company[.]” The ACR Project has since made demands on behalf of shareholders to the officers and directo


rs of Lowe’s, Novartis, McDonald’s, and Starbucks. America First Legal appears to have taken a related tack this week in publicly demanding on behalf of shareholders that the Walt Disney Company’s officers and directors launch investigations into alleged violations of employee's civil rights.

Featuring:

Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project
---

To register, click the link above.]]>3258cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-egbert-v-In 2014, Erik Egbert, a Customs and Border Patrol Agent, went to the Smugglers Inn, which sits at the U.S.-Canada border, and approached a car carrying a guest from Turkey. The inn’s owner, Robert Boule, asked Egbert to leave. Egbert refused to do so and pushed Boule to the ground. After Boule complained to Egbert’s supervisors, Egbert suggested to the IRS that it investigate Boule. In Egbert v. Boule, argued on March 2, the Court continued to grapple with Bivens questions, including whether Bivens applies to First Amendment retaliation and whether federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions are subject to Bivens suits for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.
Featuring:
Anya Bidwell, Attorney and Elfie Gallun Fellow in Freedom and the Constitution, Institute for Justice
Erin Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center
Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49438899Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:33:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA federal statute allows citizens to sue state and local officers for violating constitutional rights, but there is no federal law that does the same for federal officers. In 1971, in a case called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau...In 2014, Erik Egbert, a Customs and Border Patrol Agent, went to the Smugglers Inn, which sits at the U.S.-Canada border, and approached a car carrying a guest from Turkey. The inn’s owner, Robert Boule, asked Egbert to leave. Egbert refused to do so and pushed Boule to the ground. After Boule complained to Egbert’s supervisors, Egbert suggested to the IRS that it investigate Boule. In Egbert v. Boule, argued on March 2, the Court continued to grapple with Bivens questions, including whether Bivens applies to First Amendment retaliation and whether federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions are subject to Bivens suits for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.
Featuring:
Anya Bidwell, Attorney and Elfie Gallun Fellow in Freedom and the Constitution, Institute for Justice
Erin Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center
Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
--
To register, click the link above.]]>3660cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/revisiting-jacobson
Featuring:

--Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
--Prof. Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair and Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin School of Law

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49438889Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:32:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding a state's ability to enforce compulsory vaccination laws pursuant to its police powers and for the protection of its citizens. This precedent has recently come under scrutiny...
Featuring:

--Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
--Prof. Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair and Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin School of Law

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3484cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/title-vi-college-admissions-and-public-oFeaturing:

Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)
Theodore Johnson, Director, Fellows Program, Brennan Center for Justice
Moderator: Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)

Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49435371Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:10:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith the Supreme Court about to hear two cases involving the use of race in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, what do Americans actually think about preferential treatment? Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow at the...Featuring:

Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)
Theodore Johnson, Director, Fellows Program, Brennan Center for Justice
Moderator: Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)

Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.]]>3624administrative law & regulatio,affirmative action,civil rights,education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-separation-of-powers-from-washingtonExpanding on the recent Regulatory Transparency Project panel discussion on emergency executive power during the pandemic, this event will feature experts engaging in a broader separation of powers discussion about the distinctions between the federal and state separation of powers doctrines, using California as an example.
In a conversation moderated by Braden Boucek, David. A. Carrillo, Luke A. Wake, and John C. Yoo will explore those distinctions, examine how they affect the latitude and options state and federal executives have, and debate the extent to which federal separation of powers doctrines can or should be applied to the states through judicial interpretation.
Featuring:

David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
Luke A. Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
[Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation

Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49435347Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:05:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyAre state governors subject to the same separation of powers restrictions as the federal president? Expanding on the recent Regulatory Transparency Project panel discussion on emergency executive power during the pandemic, this event will feature...Expanding on the recent Regulatory Transparency Project panel discussion on emergency executive power during the pandemic, this event will feature experts engaging in a broader separation of powers discussion about the distinctions between the federal and state separation of powers doctrines, using California as an example.
In a conversation moderated by Braden Boucek, David. A. Carrillo, Luke A. Wake, and John C. Yoo will explore those distinctions, examine how they affect the latitude and options state and federal executives have, and debate the extent to which federal separation of powers doctrines can or should be applied to the states through judicial interpretation.
Featuring:

David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
Luke A. Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
[Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation

Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.]]>3977administrative law & regulatio,federalism & separation of pow,regulatory transparency projec,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-new-yorks-covid-therap
On December 27, 2021, the NYHD issued guidelines for the administration of the antivirals paxlovid and molnupiravir. Citing the short supply of both treatments, the NYHD directed that the drugs could only be administered to patients with Covid who also had “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for covid.” While New York’s guidelines link to the CDC’s “People with Certain Medical Conditions” page to describe “risk factors for severe illness,” New York specifically added consideration of race as a factor for prescription.

The guidelines state: “Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from Covid-19.”

As a result, in some cases identically situated "whites" and non-white are ineligible or eligible for certain treatments. Although the NYHD disputes the characterization of their guidelines as impermissibly racially discriminatory, many lawsuits have been filed challenging the guidelines as impermissible and illegal race discrimination. The first of those lawsuits was filed by Professor William Jacobson of Cornell who joins us to discuss the pending litigation in New York and in other states across the country.



Featuring:

--Prof. William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic, Cornell Law School; President, Legal Insurrection

---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49412641Tue, 12 Apr 2022 15:59:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyNew York’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been widely criticized, triggered an FBI investigation, and repeatedly landed the state before the Supreme Court. The latest criticism comes coupled with litigation alleging that New York State’s...
On December 27, 2021, the NYHD issued guidelines for the administration of the antivirals paxlovid and molnupiravir. Citing the short supply of both treatments, the NYHD directed that the drugs could only be administered to patients with Covid who also had “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for covid.” While New York’s guidelines link to the CDC’s “People with Certain Medical Conditions” page to describe “risk factors for severe illness,” New York specifically added consideration of race as a factor for prescription.

The guidelines state: “Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from Covid-19.”

As a result, in some cases identically situated "whites" and non-white are ineligible or eligible for certain treatments. Although the NYHD disputes the characterization of their guidelines as impermissibly racially discriminatory, many lawsuits have been filed challenging the guidelines as impermissible and illegal race discrimination. The first of those lawsuits was filed by Professor William Jacobson of Cornell who joins us to discuss the pending litigation in New York and in other states across the country.



Featuring:

--Prof. William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic, Cornell Law School; President, Legal Insurrection

---

To register, click the link above.]]>1869cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/citizen-suits-separation-of-powers-and-t
This webinar will have a lively discussion among three leading experts about what the future may hold for citizen suits, standing doctrine, and the separation of powers

Featuring:
--Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
--Prof. Robin Craig, Robert C. Packard Trustee Chair in Law, USC Gould School of Law
--Jonathan Brightbill, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP and former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment & Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice
--Moderator: Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49402370Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:16:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyInternal tensions in the Supreme Court's standing doctrine have led to some unexpected fractures. Last term, in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, the Court considered a class action arising from Transunion's errors in the processing and use of the...
This webinar will have a lively discussion among three leading experts about what the future may hold for citizen suits, standing doctrine, and the separation of powers

Featuring:
--Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
--Prof. Robin Craig, Robert C. Packard Trustee Chair in Law, USC Gould School of Law
--Jonathan Brightbill, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP and former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment & Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice
--Moderator: Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC]]>3604cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-ducey-v-treasury
Two attorneys on the ground in Arizona join us to discuss this case.

Featuring:
--Anni Foster, General Counsel, Governor Doug Ducey
--Moderator: Michael Bailey, General Counsel, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry

---

This Zoom link is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49274932Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:11:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 21, 2022, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey filed suit against Janet Yellen and the Treasury Department over its threat to withdraw federal funding if Governor Ducey did not alter school masking conditions. Ducey allocated over $160 million for...
Two attorneys on the ground in Arizona join us to discuss this case.

Featuring:
--Anni Foster, General Counsel, Governor Doug Ducey
--Moderator: Michael Bailey, General Counsel, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry

---

This Zoom link is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3137cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/wheres-the-beef-inflation-at-the-grocery
Featuring:

--Mark Dopp, General Counsel, the North American Meat Institute
--Sean Heather, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
--Joe Maxwell, President, Farm Action
--Moderator: Hon. Stephen Vaden, Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade

---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49240959Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:48:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlthough inflation has broadly scattered across the economy, it is the food we buy where inflation's bite is the most obvious. The Biden Administration has pointed the finger at industry consolidation as the culprit. It proposes a rewrite of the...
Featuring:

--Mark Dopp, General Counsel, the North American Meat Institute
--Sean Heather, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
--Joe Maxwell, President, Farm Action
--Moderator: Hon. Stephen Vaden, Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade

---

To register, click the link above.]]>3745cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/spectrum-policy-in-the-5g-era
Featuring:
--Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
--Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge
--Tricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
--Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Legal Advisor, Commissioner Brendan Carr

---

This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49185283Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:17:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis webinar will focus on spectrum policy in the 5G era and the recent increase in inter-agency spectrum turf wars. In recent years, there has been an uptick in the amount of involvement by other agencies, including the Department of Transportation,...
Featuring:
--Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
--Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge
--Tricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
--Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Legal Advisor, Commissioner Brendan Carr

---

This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3696cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/legal-review-dobbs-and-the-holdings-of-rThese two distinguished scholars join us to discuss the argument, the stakes, and more.
Featuring:
Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
---
This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49141959Mon, 21 Mar 2022 20:46:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyBefore the Supreme Court this term is the question of whether all pre-viability bans on abortion are unconstitutional. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the Court must address this question in light of its previous holdings in Roe v. Wade and...These two distinguished scholars join us to discuss the argument, the stakes, and more.
Featuring:
Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
---
This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>4198cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-who-decides-states-as
A distinguished group of legal thinkers and practitioners joins us to discuss this book.

Featuring:

--Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
--Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
--Moderator: Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49084063Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:51:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs federalism becomes an increasingly important principle of our constitutional structure, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has published a timely book titled, Who Decides? States as Laboratories of...
A distinguished group of legal thinkers and practitioners joins us to discuss this book.

Featuring:

--Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
--Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
--Moderator: Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3572cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/draft-sep-policy-statement
These two distinguished scholars join us to discuss the argument, the stakes, and more.

Featuring:
--Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

---

This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49072332Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:33:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyBefore the Supreme Court this term is the question of whether all pre-viability bans on abortion are unconstitutional. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the Court must address this question in light of its previous holdings in Roe v. Wade and...
These two distinguished scholars join us to discuss the argument, the stakes, and more.

Featuring:
--Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

---

This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3362cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-camero
Our expert will cover the case, the ruling, and its implications.

Featuring:

--Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49033303Fri, 11 Mar 2022 19:09:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney...
Our expert will cover the case, the ruling, and its implications.

Featuring:

--Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>1938cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-wooden-v-united-statesSpeaker:

Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49018775Thu, 10 Mar 2022 15:37:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for a webinar featuring Vikrant Reddy to discuss the Supreme Court decision in Wooden v. United States. Speaker: Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch InstituteSpeaker:

Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute]]>2033cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-in-re-ltl-management
A divisional merger is a state-law transaction where a business entity divides itself into two new entities. It is similar in substance to other state-law transactions that result in the emergence of new legal entities. Controversy has arisen when—following the divisional merger—one of the new entities initiates Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, as LTL did.

Professor Tony Casey of the University of Chicago Law School will address the interplay of divisional mergers and Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the context of the J&J litigation and LTL bankruptcy. He will review the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value, explain how a divisional merger can further that purpose in the mass tort context, and discuss how existing law protects against the potential for abuse.

Featuring:

--Prof. Anthony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics, ---Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49017616Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn October 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. J&J...
A divisional merger is a state-law transaction where a business entity divides itself into two new entities. It is similar in substance to other state-law transactions that result in the emergence of new legal entities. Controversy has arisen when—following the divisional merger—one of the new entities initiates Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, as LTL did.

Professor Tony Casey of the University of Chicago Law School will address the interplay of divisional mergers and Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the context of the J&J litigation and LTL bankruptcy. He will review the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value, explain how a divisional merger can further that purpose in the mass tort context, and discuss how existing law protects against the potential for abuse.

Featuring:

--Prof. Anthony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics, ---Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School

---

This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3585cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/opioid-litigations-and-public-nuisance-u
The companies continue to face claims in Alabama, Washington, West Virginia and Oklahoma, where in November 2021 the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state’s public nuisance statute did not extend to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids.

On November 23, 2021, an Ohio federal jury found CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies liable for recklessly distributing opioids in Lake and Trumbull counties in Ohio. Rite Aid and Giant Eagle settled in 2021. U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster is scheduled to decide damages this spring.

Please join us on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, at 2:00pm EST/11:00am PST, as John Shu, who has been following the national litigations, will hold a Zoom webinar to update us on the litigations in California, Oklahoma, and Ohio, and discuss their legal and strategic issues.

Featuring:
--John Shu, Professor, Attorney, and Legal Commentator]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49009316Wed, 09 Mar 2022 20:26:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 25, 2022, Johnson & Johnson, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc., and Amerisourcebergen Corp. announced that they had agreed to finalize a reported $26 billion settlement to resolve approximately...
The companies continue to face claims in Alabama, Washington, West Virginia and Oklahoma, where in November 2021 the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state’s public nuisance statute did not extend to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids.

On November 23, 2021, an Ohio federal jury found CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies liable for recklessly distributing opioids in Lake and Trumbull counties in Ohio. Rite Aid and Giant Eagle settled in 2021. U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster is scheduled to decide damages this spring.

Please join us on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, at 2:00pm EST/11:00am PST, as John Shu, who has been following the national litigations, will hold a Zoom webinar to update us on the litigations in California, Oklahoma, and Ohio, and discuss their legal and strategic issues.

Featuring:
--John Shu, Professor, Attorney, and Legal Commentator]]>3423cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-unborn-human-life-and-fundamProfessor Gerard Bradley will discuss his contribution to the volume, as well as the relevant and current issues both here and around the world.
Featuring:
Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
---
This Zoom event is open to public registration.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48997685Tue, 08 Mar 2022 20:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Unborn Human Life and Fundamental Rights: Leading Constitutional Cases under Scrutiny (Peter Lang, 2019), editors William L. Saunders and Pilar Zambrano have collected a series of essays covering over 10 different nations and jurisdictions and...Professor Gerard Bradley will discuss his contribution to the volume, as well as the relevant and current issues both here and around the world.
Featuring:
Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
---
This Zoom event is open to public registration.]]>4943cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-future-of-the-supreme-court
Featuring:
--Prof. Dan Epps, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis
--Ethan Davis, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding
--Prof. William Marshall, Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
--Roger Severino, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48981474Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:22:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join the Practice Groups for a timely webinar on how the upcoming Supreme Court nominee might shape law in the future. Prof. Dan Epps and Ethan Davis will consider the nominee's influence on criminal law, while Prof. William Marshall and Roger...
Featuring:
--Prof. Dan Epps, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis
--Ethan Davis, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding
--Prof. William Marshall, Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
--Roger Severino, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>3607cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/switchbacks-at-the-doj-the-sessions-bran
What will be the impacts and effects of the Garland memo? Is this a sea change in favor of regulation by guidance, or a recognition by DOJ that guidance documents do not have the force of law? How have regulated entities responded? Acting Associate Attorney General (2017-2019) Jesse Panuccio and Assistant U.S. Attorney (2011-2019) Christopher Sabis will discuss these issues, moderated by Assistant Attorney General (2017-2020) Beth Williams.

Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
--Christopher Sabis, Member, Sherrard Roe Voigt Harbison
--Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice

---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48981331Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:13:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDuring President Biden’s first year in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland rescinded two key memos that were part of the Trump Administration’s stated regulatory reform agenda: the Sessions Memo, which prohibited Department of Justice (DOJ)...
What will be the impacts and effects of the Garland memo? Is this a sea change in favor of regulation by guidance, or a recognition by DOJ that guidance documents do not have the force of law? How have regulated entities responded? Acting Associate Attorney General (2017-2019) Jesse Panuccio and Assistant U.S. Attorney (2011-2019) Christopher Sabis will discuss these issues, moderated by Assistant Attorney General (2017-2020) Beth Williams.

Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
--Christopher Sabis, Member, Sherrard Roe Voigt Harbison
--Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice

---

To register, click the link above.]]>3667cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/march-2022-virtual-dc-lunch-with-ed-whelFeaturing:
--Edward Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center
--Moderator: Steven A. Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48936283Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:43:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us virtually on Tuesday, March 1 to hear our speakers discuss the Supreme Court nomination. Featuring: --Edward Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center...Featuring:
--Edward Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center
--Moderator: Steven A. Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice]]>3781cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-thomas-jefferson-high-Litigation followed. The Coalition for TJ—comprised of approximately 5,000 concerned parents, residents of Fairfax County, and parents of eighth-graders who would be impacted by the admission policy change—sued the Fairfax County School Board and Superintendent Scott Brabrand alleging that the new policy was adopted with racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Last Friday, February 25, a District Court granted summary judgment for the Coalition for TJ. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent cert grant in the pair of Students for Fair Admission's cases—Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admission v. UNC Chapel Hill—the Thomas Jefferson litigation is rapidly gaining national attention.
Nicki Neily, President of Parents Defending Education, joined us for a litigation update on the summary judgment decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Nicki Neily, President of Parents Defending Education
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48927236Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast year, Thomas Jefferson High School (TJ), ranked #1 in the nation for academic excellence, changed its admission policy discarding a merit-based entrance exam in favor of a “holistic evaluation” to determine admission. The school...Litigation followed. The Coalition for TJ—comprised of approximately 5,000 concerned parents, residents of Fairfax County, and parents of eighth-graders who would be impacted by the admission policy change—sued the Fairfax County School Board and Superintendent Scott Brabrand alleging that the new policy was adopted with racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Last Friday, February 25, a District Court granted summary judgment for the Coalition for TJ. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent cert grant in the pair of Students for Fair Admission's cases—Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admission v. UNC Chapel Hill—the Thomas Jefferson litigation is rapidly gaining national attention.
Nicki Neily, President of Parents Defending Education, joined us for a litigation update on the summary judgment decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Nicki Neily, President of Parents Defending Education
---
To register, click the link above.]]>2774cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-west-virgThe Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in 2016, and in 2019 the Trump Administration rescinded it and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, concluding that the Clean Power Plan’s design was unambiguously beyond the limits of the Agency’s authority under Section 111. In 2021, and over a dissent from Judge Walker, the D.C. Circuit disagreed. And in American Lung Association v. EPA (985 F.3d 914), the D.C. Circuit vacated the Clean Power Plan repeal and Affordable Clean Energy rule, staying the vacatur indefinitely pending further rulemaking because EPA, under the current administration, has declared it will not enforce either rule.
The issue before the Court in West Virginia v. EPA is whether, when designing rules under Section 111, EPA is limited to identifying “systems of emission reduction” that can be applied to and at the level of an individually regulated facility, or whether there are no limits to EPA’s authority other than the textual commands to consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Federal respondents argue the case is moot and should be dismissed as improvidently granted.
This teleforum will discuss the legal issues involved, questions from the bench, and anticipate where the law could be headed. A broader discussion on West Virginia v. EPA, with additional speakers and analysis, will be provided after the Court renders its decision.
For accompanying document, click here
Featuring:
Speaker: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48915629Tue, 01 Mar 2022 20:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear West Virginia v. EPA, one of the most anticipated environmental law cases on the Court’s docket in recent years. By way of background, in 2015, EPA issued the “Clean Power Plan.”...The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in 2016, and in 2019 the Trump Administration rescinded it and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, concluding that the Clean Power Plan’s design was unambiguously beyond the limits of the Agency’s authority under Section 111. In 2021, and over a dissent from Judge Walker, the D.C. Circuit disagreed. And in American Lung Association v. EPA (985 F.3d 914), the D.C. Circuit vacated the Clean Power Plan repeal and Affordable Clean Energy rule, staying the vacatur indefinitely pending further rulemaking because EPA, under the current administration, has declared it will not enforce either rule.
The issue before the Court in West Virginia v. EPA is whether, when designing rules under Section 111, EPA is limited to identifying “systems of emission reduction” that can be applied to and at the level of an individually regulated facility, or whether there are no limits to EPA’s authority other than the textual commands to consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Federal respondents argue the case is moot and should be dismissed as improvidently granted.
This teleforum will discuss the legal issues involved, questions from the bench, and anticipate where the law could be headed. A broader discussion on West Virginia v. EPA, with additional speakers and analysis, will be provided after the Court renders its decision.
For accompanying document, click here
Featuring:
Speaker: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.]]>3760cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-unicolors-inc-Featuring:
Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor at SIU Law, and was a Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law. He has previously taught at University of New Hampshire School of Law as an adjunct professor and New York Law School as an adjunct assistant professor.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48910399Tue, 01 Mar 2022 14:19:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us virtually to hear a discussion on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP. Featuring: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor at SIU Law, and was a Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at...Featuring:
Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor at SIU Law, and was a Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law. He has previously taught at University of New Hampshire School of Law as an adjunct professor and New York Law School as an adjunct assistant professor.]]>1605cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/freedom-of-thought-on-campus-discussion-Many universities, including Georgetown, have adopted strong policies on academic freedom, affirming that deliberation or debate may not be suppressed because ideas put forth might be offensive, unwise, immoral or ill conceived.
But when controversy arises on campus, concrete complaints about offensive speech can displace these abstract principles of academic freedom.
What does an environment conducive to learning require? What kinds of limits should govern the ideas that students are exposed to by their teachers and classmates? Should students be exposed to ideas or opinions that are offensive? Should students have recourse to administrative action when faced with an offensive opinion? What kind of harm does offense entail?
On the other hand, when administrators step in to punish offending speech, does that decision come with consequences? And who bears the resulting harm attendant on limiting who can speak or what opinions can be expressed? Who measures what kind of opinions or statements are harmful or not?

Featuring:
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48863733Thu, 24 Feb 2022 20:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIs open discussion and debate essential to the function of the university? Many universities, including Georgetown, have adopted strong policies on academic freedom, affirming that deliberation or debate may not be suppressed because ideas put forth...Many universities, including Georgetown, have adopted strong policies on academic freedom, affirming that deliberation or debate may not be suppressed because ideas put forth might be offensive, unwise, immoral or ill conceived.
But when controversy arises on campus, concrete complaints about offensive speech can displace these abstract principles of academic freedom.
What does an environment conducive to learning require? What kinds of limits should govern the ideas that students are exposed to by their teachers and classmates? Should students be exposed to ideas or opinions that are offensive? Should students have recourse to administrative action when faced with an offensive opinion? What kind of harm does offense entail?
On the other hand, when administrators step in to punish offending speech, does that decision come with consequences? And who bears the resulting harm attendant on limiting who can speak or what opinions can be expressed? Who measures what kind of opinions or statements are harmful or not?

Featuring:
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
---
To register, click the link above.]]>3584cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-merrill-v-milligan
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court stayed that order.

Many commentators have weighed in, some critiquing the Court's order, others dissecting the vote breakdown and still others considering possible implications. Professor Michael T. Morley of FSU College of Law joins us for a litigation update to discuss the issues.

Featuring:
--Professor Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law


---

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48858310Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:34:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 7, 2022, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and granted certiorari before judgment in a case involving Alabama's new congressional district map. It also granted a stay allowing the map to go into effect for Alabama's upcoming...
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court stayed that order.

Many commentators have weighed in, some critiquing the Court's order, others dissecting the vote breakdown and still others considering possible implications. Professor Michael T. Morley of FSU College of Law joins us for a litigation update to discuss the issues.

Featuring:
--Professor Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law


---

To register, click the link above.]]>3245cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/cert-petition-litigation-update-united-s
Featuring:

Professor Orin Kerr, William G. Simon Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law
Josh Windham, attorney at the Institute for Justice
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts; former Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48834979Tue, 22 Feb 2022 19:18:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAn exciting petition for certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Tuggle presents the question "Whether long-term, continuous, and surreptitious video surveillance of a home and its curtilage constitutes a search under the...
Featuring:

Professor Orin Kerr, William G. Simon Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law
Josh Windham, attorney at the Institute for Justice
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts; former Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>3530cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/foreign-sovereign-and-international-orga
Featuring:
--Rick Herz, Senior Litigation Attorney, EarthRights International
--Eliot Pedrosa, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Harout Samra, Counsel, DLA Piper]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48729991Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and its lesser-known sibling, the International Organizations Immunities Act, enacted in 1945, codify the immunities afforded to foreign states and certain international organizations in U.S. courts. Sovereign and...
Featuring:
--Rick Herz, Senior Litigation Attorney, EarthRights International
--Eliot Pedrosa, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Harout Samra, Counsel, DLA Piper]]>3559cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-biden-administration-on-policing-wha
Featuring:
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute and Former U.S. Attorney
Renee Mitchell, Co-Founder, American Society of Evidence-Based Policing and Senior Police Researcher, RTI International
Marc Levin, Council on Criminal Justice, Moderator]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48678726Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:54:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRising homicide rates, challenges in fully staffing police departments, and a shortfall in trust between some communities and law enforcement agencies have focused attention on whether and how the federal government should respond. This session will...
Featuring:
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute and Former U.S. Attorney
Renee Mitchell, Co-Founder, American Society of Evidence-Based Policing and Senior Police Researcher, RTI International
Marc Levin, Council on Criminal Justice, Moderator]]>3449cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-mis-use-of-anti-suit-injunctions-in-

Featuring:

--Steve Akerley, Head of Litigation, Interdigital
--Prof. Ann Bartow, University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law
--Judge Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (ret.)
--Moderator: Eliza Beeney, Associate, McKool Smith PC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48642996Tue, 08 Feb 2022 14:22:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe propriety of anti-suit injunctions—that is, orders issued in one jurisdiction prohibiting a party from initiating or continuing litigation in another jurisdiction—has recently become a hot topic in international IP disputes. Chinese courts...

Featuring:

--Steve Akerley, Head of Litigation, Interdigital
--Prof. Ann Bartow, University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law
--Judge Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (ret.)
--Moderator: Eliza Beeney, Associate, McKool Smith PC]]>3335cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/who-runs-the-fdic-in-a-new-administratio
Director Gruenberg and the two ex-officio directors, both Biden appointees, moved to take control of the board agenda, specifically with regard to bank merger policies, which led McWilliams, a Trump appointee, to resign as chairman, effective February 4. Gruenberg may likely become the acting chairman of what will be, for the time being, a three-member board.

The dispute between McWilliams and the other three directors has raised several issues not just for the FDIC but for other agencies governed by boards, such as the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the NCUA, the CFTC. The FDIC is unique, though, with two directors serving at the pleasure of the President, and who head their own agencies without colleagues who have a vote on their actions.

The webinar panelists will discuss the implications of the turmoil at the FDIC and what it may mean for not just the FDIC but also for the boards of other independent regulatory agencies.

Featuring:

--Thomas Vartanian, Executive Director, The Financial Tech and Cybersecurity Center
--Michael Krimminger, Senior Counsel, Cleary Gotlieb
-- Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
-- Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48593648Fri, 04 Feb 2022 21:54:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe FDIC board of directors has been convulsed by the widely publicized dispute over who controls the agenda for FDIC board meetings -- the Board chair or a majority of its members. Currently, the FDIC Board has four members -- Chairperson Jelena...
Director Gruenberg and the two ex-officio directors, both Biden appointees, moved to take control of the board agenda, specifically with regard to bank merger policies, which led McWilliams, a Trump appointee, to resign as chairman, effective February 4. Gruenberg may likely become the acting chairman of what will be, for the time being, a three-member board.

The dispute between McWilliams and the other three directors has raised several issues not just for the FDIC but for other agencies governed by boards, such as the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the NCUA, the CFTC. The FDIC is unique, though, with two directors serving at the pleasure of the President, and who head their own agencies without colleagues who have a vote on their actions.

The webinar panelists will discuss the implications of the turmoil at the FDIC and what it may mean for not just the FDIC but also for the boards of other independent regulatory agencies.

Featuring:

--Thomas Vartanian, Executive Director, The Financial Tech and Cybersecurity Center
--Michael Krimminger, Senior Counsel, Cleary Gotlieb
-- Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
-- Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird]]>3598cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/cochran-v-sec-vindicating-article-iii-ju
Cochran is not only a groundbreaking course-correction vindicating Americans’ access to Article III courts for redress of their constitutional rights, but it creates a circuit split that may well prompt Supreme Court review. The Fifth Circuit, by a 9-7 vote (Haynes, Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham and Wilson) held that § 78y of the Exchange Act neither explicitly nor implicitly stripped jurisdiction from federal courts to hear this challenge.

Judge Oldham, joined by Judges Smith, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt and Wilson, concurred separately in a remarkable opinion that set forth the origins of the administrative state in § 78y’s transfer of power “far away from the three branches of government the Founders worked so hard to create, separate and balance … [a]nd … as far away from democracy and universal suffrage as possible.” They said that critical disjuncture has allowed “administrative agencies to operate in a separate, anti-constitutional, and anti-democratic space—free from pesky things like law and an increasingly diverse electorate.”

Please join Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), who argued the en banc, and Gregory Garre, former U.S. Solicitor General and now partner at Latham & Watkins, who worked with another NCLA client in 2020 on a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court on this point, for a discussion of this landmark decision and the concurrence’s open engagement with administrative power. Peggy and Greg will discuss how this structural constitutional question was litigated in district courts in California, Texas and the Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, what the Fifth Circuit got right that so many other circuits got wrong, and how this separation of powers question might reach the Supreme Court in the near future.



Featuring:

--Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--Gregory Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48576033Thu, 03 Feb 2022 17:31:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Cochran v. SEC the Fifth Circuit court of appeals sitting en banc opened the doors of federal district courts in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana to constitutional challenges to agency administrative law judges (ALJs) who enjoy multiple layers of...
Cochran is not only a groundbreaking course-correction vindicating Americans’ access to Article III courts for redress of their constitutional rights, but it creates a circuit split that may well prompt Supreme Court review. The Fifth Circuit, by a 9-7 vote (Haynes, Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham and Wilson) held that § 78y of the Exchange Act neither explicitly nor implicitly stripped jurisdiction from federal courts to hear this challenge.

Judge Oldham, joined by Judges Smith, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt and Wilson, concurred separately in a remarkable opinion that set forth the origins of the administrative state in § 78y’s transfer of power “far away from the three branches of government the Founders worked so hard to create, separate and balance … [a]nd … as far away from democracy and universal suffrage as possible.” They said that critical disjuncture has allowed “administrative agencies to operate in a separate, anti-constitutional, and anti-democratic space—free from pesky things like law and an increasingly diverse electorate.”

Please join Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), who argued the en banc, and Gregory Garre, former U.S. Solicitor General and now partner at Latham & Watkins, who worked with another NCLA client in 2020 on a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court on this point, for a discussion of this landmark decision and the concurrence’s open engagement with administrative power. Peggy and Greg will discuss how this structural constitutional question was litigated in district courts in California, Texas and the Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, what the Fifth Circuit got right that so many other circuits got wrong, and how this separation of powers question might reach the Supreme Court in the near future.



Featuring:

--Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--Gregory Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins]]>3289cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-cert-granted-in-studenBeyond challenging Grutter, the petitioners suing Harvard allege the college’s admissions policies discriminate against Asian Americans in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
In both the Harvard and UNC cases, lower courts have so far upheld the use of race in admissions. And after the Court called for the views of the Biden Administration, the United States filed a brief urging the Court not to get involved in the Harvard matter. Nevertheless, the case is proceeding to the Court in what is sure to be a significant battle on the topic of whether schools can consider a student's race when making admissions decisions.
Join Will Trachman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education, for a litigation update discussing both cases. Will is currently General Counsel to Mountain States Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in both the Harvard and UNC petitions, urging the Court to grant certiorari.
Featuring:

Will Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48562999Wed, 02 Feb 2022 19:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyBreaking news: The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two petitions pending before the Supreme Court which have gained national attention. Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admission,...Beyond challenging Grutter, the petitioners suing Harvard allege the college’s admissions policies discriminate against Asian Americans in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
In both the Harvard and UNC cases, lower courts have so far upheld the use of race in admissions. And after the Court called for the views of the Biden Administration, the United States filed a brief urging the Court not to get involved in the Harvard matter. Nevertheless, the case is proceeding to the Court in what is sure to be a significant battle on the topic of whether schools can consider a student's race when making admissions decisions.
Join Will Trachman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education, for a litigation update discussing both cases. Will is currently General Counsel to Mountain States Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in both the Harvard and UNC petitions, urging the Court to grant certiorari.
Featuring:

Will Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

To register, click the link above.]]>3393cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fireside-chat-with-nadine-strossenFeaturing:
Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School
Moderator: Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
---
To join, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48539262Tue, 01 Feb 2022 14:02:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFree speech champion and icon Nadine Strossen joins Erik Jaffe for a virtual “fireside” chat spanning a variety of free speech topics, including: the perpetual and inevitable conflict between process- and outcome-oriented approaches to...Featuring:
Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School
Moderator: Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
---
To join, click the link above.]]>3526cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-new-yorks-rent-stabiliA lawsuit filed in 2019 asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners— violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. After being dismissed at the District level, the case now moves to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Rent regulation is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Dean Reuter, Federalist Society Senior Vice President and General Counsel, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence—including last Term’s decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Featuring:
Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown
Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48488240Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:17:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDoes New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? The law, which regulates approximately 1 million apartments in New York City, was enacted more than fifty years ago and remains in effect based on an...A lawsuit filed in 2019 asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners— violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. After being dismissed at the District level, the case now moves to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Rent regulation is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Dean Reuter, Federalist Society Senior Vice President and General Counsel, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence—including last Term’s decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Featuring:
Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown
Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society
---
To register, click the link above.]]>3496cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-fec-v-cruz-for-senatePursuant to BCRA, the case was heard by a 3-judge district court panel in Washington, D.C. and, after the court struck down the limitation, the FEC appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which set it for oral argument. The case offers an opportunity for the Court to clarify and/or refine its campaign finance jurisprudence, including reviewing the real-world effect of such restrictions on political speech, the distinction devised in Buckley v. Valeo between expenditures and contributions, and the various levels of scrutiny for each.
The webinar will review the traditional free speech issues in the case (including the extent of any risk of corruption or its appearance presented by a candidate's loan to his or her own campaign), as well as practical concerns about the effect these limitations might have on campaigns -- including on the kinds of candidates who will be able to run for office.
Featuring:
Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Litigator, Institute for Free Speech
Harmeet Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48454756Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:49:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 19, 2022, the United States Supreme Court will hear an appeal by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) from a successful challenge to campaign finance restrictions brought by Sen. Ted Cruz. The action centers on a provision of the...Pursuant to BCRA, the case was heard by a 3-judge district court panel in Washington, D.C. and, after the court struck down the limitation, the FEC appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which set it for oral argument. The case offers an opportunity for the Court to clarify and/or refine its campaign finance jurisprudence, including reviewing the real-world effect of such restrictions on political speech, the distinction devised in Buckley v. Valeo between expenditures and contributions, and the various levels of scrutiny for each.
The webinar will review the traditional free speech issues in the case (including the extent of any risk of corruption or its appearance presented by a candidate's loan to his or her own campaign), as well as practical concerns about the effect these limitations might have on campaigns -- including on the kinds of candidates who will be able to run for office.
Featuring:
Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Litigator, Institute for Free Speech
Harmeet Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
---
To register, click the link above.]]>3153cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-new-mass-arbitration-just-deserts-orFeaturing:

Daniel Fisher, Chartered Financial Analyst, Walden Consultants, LLC
Maria Glover, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48441575Tue, 25 Jan 2022 18:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent years, many companies have required consumers and employees to agree to individually arbitrate any disputes that might arise, eliminating aggregate dispute resolution devices like class actions. In response, plaintiffs’ lawyers have...Featuring:

Daniel Fisher, Chartered Financial Analyst, Walden Consultants, LLC
Maria Glover, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School]]>3370cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-investigating-title-vi
In the years since their enactment, observers have accused colleges and universities of violating Titles VI and IX in various ways. Many Title IX concerns have involved single-sex, female-only programs, scholarships, awards, fellowships, camps, clubs, etc. Others have involved single-sex, male-only programs. And recently, programs or scholarships for BIPOC-only or people of color have invoked Title VI concerns. One such observer of these potential civil rights violations is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Michigan, Mark Perry.

Over the last three years, Professor Perry has identified more than 1,200 Title IX and Title VI alleged violations and has filed complaints with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against nearly 400 colleges and universities which have resulted in nearly 200 federal investigations and more than 100 resolutions, mostly in his favor.

However, after years of this work, Professor Perry announced recently that he has noticed what he describes as a “significant departure from past practices” in what OCR now requires of Title VI and Title IX complaints. Please join us for an update from Professor Perry on his civil rights advocacy and what he views as “troubling signs” at the Biden-Cardona-Lhamon OCR for a discrimination-free educational experience for all.

Featuring:

-- Mark Perry, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

-- Moderator: Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48440765Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:23:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyTitle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 supplemented Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include, in addition to barring discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin, sex as a protected class in federally funded...
In the years since their enactment, observers have accused colleges and universities of violating Titles VI and IX in various ways. Many Title IX concerns have involved single-sex, female-only programs, scholarships, awards, fellowships, camps, clubs, etc. Others have involved single-sex, male-only programs. And recently, programs or scholarships for BIPOC-only or people of color have invoked Title VI concerns. One such observer of these potential civil rights violations is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Michigan, Mark Perry.

Over the last three years, Professor Perry has identified more than 1,200 Title IX and Title VI alleged violations and has filed complaints with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against nearly 400 colleges and universities which have resulted in nearly 200 federal investigations and more than 100 resolutions, mostly in his favor.

However, after years of this work, Professor Perry announced recently that he has noticed what he describes as a “significant departure from past practices” in what OCR now requires of Title VI and Title IX complaints. Please join us for an update from Professor Perry on his civil rights advocacy and what he views as “troubling signs” at the Biden-Cardona-Lhamon OCR for a discrimination-free educational experience for all.

Featuring:

-- Mark Perry, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

-- Moderator: Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>3606cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-the-great-dissenter-t
Author Peter Canellos joins us to discuss his new book and Justice Harlan's legacy.


Featuring:


Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Peter S. Canellos, Managing Editor, Politico
Moderator: Hon. Victor Wolski, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

---
This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48440726Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:19:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero is a new book exploring the life and legacy of a towering but sometimes forgotten jurist. Harlan, who served over 30 years on America's highest court, earned a reputation...
Author Peter Canellos joins us to discuss his new book and Justice Harlan's legacy.


Featuring:


Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Peter S. Canellos, Managing Editor, Politico
Moderator: Hon. Victor Wolski, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

---
This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3592cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-fourth-amendment-at-the-high-court-l

Caniglia v. Strom, a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas rejecting the warrantless search of a home under the “community caretaking exception.”
Lange v. Caniglia, an opinion written by Justice Kagan rejecting a categorical exception to the warrant requirement for a fleeing misdemeanant.
Torres v. Madrid, a 5-3 decision by Chief Justice Roberts with a resounding dissent by Justice Gorsuch, debating what constitutes a "seizure"--is mere touch sufficient or must an officer take actual possession?
Bovat v. Vermont, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, dissenting from the denial of certiorari in a case involving the “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement.


The last term was a busy one for the Fourth Amendment and no doubt many questions remain in this important area of constitutional law. Join the nation's leading scholars and litigators as they discuss the most recent developments in Fourth Amendment law and preview the Amendment's future at the High Court.

Featuring:

Professor Jeffrey Bellin, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law and Robert E. and Elizabeth S. Scott Research Professor at William & Mary Law School.

Professor Laura Donohue, Anne Fleming Research Professor; Professor of Law at Georgetown Law.

Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice.

James K. Vines, Partner, King & Spalding LLP

Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts; former Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48427180Mon, 24 Jan 2022 16:38:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society's Criminal Law and Procedure and Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Groups bring you a roundtable discussion with leading Fourth Amendment scholars and litigators reviewing the major Fourth Amendment decisions from...

Caniglia v. Strom, a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas rejecting the warrantless search of a home under the “community caretaking exception.”
Lange v. Caniglia, an opinion written by Justice Kagan rejecting a categorical exception to the warrant requirement for a fleeing misdemeanant.
Torres v. Madrid, a 5-3 decision by Chief Justice Roberts with a resounding dissent by Justice Gorsuch, debating what constitutes a "seizure"--is mere touch sufficient or must an officer take actual possession?
Bovat v. Vermont, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, dissenting from the denial of certiorari in a case involving the “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement.


The last term was a busy one for the Fourth Amendment and no doubt many questions remain in this important area of constitutional law. Join the nation's leading scholars and litigators as they discuss the most recent developments in Fourth Amendment law and preview the Amendment's future at the High Court.

Featuring:

Professor Jeffrey Bellin, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law and Robert E. and Elizabeth S. Scott Research Professor at William & Mary Law School.

Professor Laura Donohue, Anne Fleming Research Professor; Professor of Law at Georgetown Law.

Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice.

James K. Vines, Partner, King & Spalding LLP

Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts; former Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>5303cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/vaccine-policy-who-decides
The OSHA rule required large employers to require vaccination or regular testing of their employees. CMS required vaccination of staff at health care facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid programs. The Court granted a stay of the OSHA rule pending merits review in the Sixth Circuit, but stayed an injunction of the CMS rule allowing it to go into effect.

But federal agencies are not the only actors setting vaccine policy. Effective January 15th, the D.C. government will require restaurants and other businesses to check customer vaccine status. Meanwhile Florida has taken a different approach, and has barred businesses from checking employee or customer vaccine status.

This panel will review the decisions and also consider the appropriate role for the various levels of government authority in setting vaccine policy, as well as competing interests of private businesses, employees, and consumers.

Featuring:
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Dorit Reiss, Professor of Law and the James Edgar Hervey '50 Chair of Litigation, UC Hastings Law
Ryan Dean Newman, General Counsel, Governor Ron DeSantis
David Dewhirst, Solicitor General, Montana
Moderator: Kate Todd, Managing Partner, Ellis George Cipollone
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48393766Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court recently issued its decisions in two federal vaccine mandate cases. Several states and interest groups sought emergency relief on regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as well as the Centers for...
The OSHA rule required large employers to require vaccination or regular testing of their employees. CMS required vaccination of staff at health care facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid programs. The Court granted a stay of the OSHA rule pending merits review in the Sixth Circuit, but stayed an injunction of the CMS rule allowing it to go into effect.

But federal agencies are not the only actors setting vaccine policy. Effective January 15th, the D.C. government will require restaurants and other businesses to check customer vaccine status. Meanwhile Florida has taken a different approach, and has barred businesses from checking employee or customer vaccine status.

This panel will review the decisions and also consider the appropriate role for the various levels of government authority in setting vaccine policy, as well as competing interests of private businesses, employees, and consumers.

Featuring:
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Dorit Reiss, Professor of Law and the James Edgar Hervey '50 Chair of Litigation, UC Hastings Law
Ryan Dean Newman, General Counsel, Governor Ron DeSantis
David Dewhirst, Solicitor General, Montana
Moderator: Kate Todd, Managing Partner, Ellis George Cipollone
---
To register, click the link above.]]>5267cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/roiling-the-waters-clean-water-act-navigSince 2015, the agencies have modified their Navigable Waters regulations three times, and dozens of federal lawsuits have challenged the various versions. Meanwhile, the validity of these regulations have been the key issue in several enforcement cases.
On December 7, 2021, the agencies proposed yet a fourth revision in six years to the regulatory definition of Navigable Waters.
This teleforum will update listeners on the key pending cases that may have an ultimate effect on the agency regulations, and provide an overview of the proposed new regulation.

Featuring:
Charles Yates, attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation’s environmental practice group, where he litigates to defend private property rights and uphold the structural protections guaranteed by the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Tony Francois, who is experienced in Water and Real Property Law, Land Use and Zoning, Environmental Regulation, Natural Resources Development, Agricultural Law, and Constitutional Law. He has represented homeowners, builders, farmers and ranchers, trade associations, and water districts in administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings before state and federal administrative agencies and state and federal trial and appellate courts.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48015457Tue, 21 Dec 2021 18:59:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Clean Water Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army to regulate discharges to “navigable waters,” defined in the statute as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” The agency...Since 2015, the agencies have modified their Navigable Waters regulations three times, and dozens of federal lawsuits have challenged the various versions. Meanwhile, the validity of these regulations have been the key issue in several enforcement cases.
On December 7, 2021, the agencies proposed yet a fourth revision in six years to the regulatory definition of Navigable Waters.
This teleforum will update listeners on the key pending cases that may have an ultimate effect on the agency regulations, and provide an overview of the proposed new regulation.

Featuring:
Charles Yates, attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation’s environmental practice group, where he litigates to defend private property rights and uphold the structural protections guaranteed by the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Tony Francois, who is experienced in Water and Real Property Law, Land Use and Zoning, Environmental Regulation, Natural Resources Development, Agricultural Law, and Constitutional Law. He has represented homeowners, builders, farmers and ranchers, trade associations, and water districts in administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings before state and federal administrative agencies and state and federal trial and appellate courts.]]>3677cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/admitting-expert-evidence-under-rule-702The Advisory Committee will host a public hearing on January 21, 2022, and those wishing to testify are asked to reserve a spot 30 days in advance. The Committee is also accepting public comments on the proposed amendment until February 16, 2022.
The webinar discussion will be moderated by Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK. Participants will include Lee Mickus, a Partner at Evans, Fears & Schuttert, who has written and spoken extensively in support of Rule 702 reforms; David Wool, a Partner at the Wagstaff Law Firm who has litigated Rule 702 and Daubert issues extensively and questioned the need for the proposed amendment; and Katie Jackson, an Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Fellow with Lawyers for Civil Justice who has conducted research regarding the courts’ application of Rule 702.
Here is a link to a webpage with several Rule 702 resources for those wishing to file a comment, testify at the hearing, or simply learn more about the proposed amendments.

Featuring:

Kateland Jackson, Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Washington, D.C.
Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK.
Lee S. Mickus, Partner, Evans Fears & Shuttert LLP
David Wool, Partner, Wagstaff Law Firm]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967146Fri, 17 Dec 2021 18:24:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis webinar will host a debate over the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony. In August 2021, the federal judiciary’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules published proposed...The Advisory Committee will host a public hearing on January 21, 2022, and those wishing to testify are asked to reserve a spot 30 days in advance. The Committee is also accepting public comments on the proposed amendment until February 16, 2022.
The webinar discussion will be moderated by Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK. Participants will include Lee Mickus, a Partner at Evans, Fears & Schuttert, who has written and spoken extensively in support of Rule 702 reforms; David Wool, a Partner at the Wagstaff Law Firm who has litigated Rule 702 and Daubert issues extensively and questioned the need for the proposed amendment; and Katie Jackson, an Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Fellow with Lawyers for Civil Justice who has conducted research regarding the courts’ application of Rule 702.
Here is a link to a webpage with several Rule 702 resources for those wishing to file a comment, testify at the hearing, or simply learn more about the proposed amendments.

Featuring:

Kateland Jackson, Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Washington, D.C.
Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK.
Lee S. Mickus, Partner, Evans Fears & Shuttert LLP
David Wool, Partner, Wagstaff Law Firm]]>3465cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-the-osha-vaccine-manda
Featuring:

-- Paul Larkin, who is the John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Larkin works on criminal justice policy, drug policy, and regulatory policy.

-- Larry Stine, a Senior Principal in the firm of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C., and an AV rated attorney, who enjoys a diverse practice in which he covers a broad range of labor and employment matters. Larry is the former Region IV Counsel for OSHA in the Office of the Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor. He is nationally known for his expertise in Occupational Safety and Health

-- Moderator: R. Pepper Crutcher, General Counsel to the Mississippi Manufacturers Association. Pepper Crutcher advises and advocates for a wide range of Southeast U.S., private sector employers. As the leader of the firm's Affordable Care Act practice, Pepper also helps employers, insurers, brokers, administrators and providers achieve ACA compliance and appeal ACA assessments. Labor negotiation and arbitration, OSHA, work site immigration enforcement, and intellectual property protection also are in Pepper's portfolio.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47953570Thu, 16 Dec 2021 21:46:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLate in 2020, several pharmaceutical companies developed vaccines for Covid-19 that received FDA approval, first for emergency use and then for general use. Next came the question of whether the federal or state governments should mandate vaccination...
Featuring:

-- Paul Larkin, who is the John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Larkin works on criminal justice policy, drug policy, and regulatory policy.

-- Larry Stine, a Senior Principal in the firm of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C., and an AV rated attorney, who enjoys a diverse practice in which he covers a broad range of labor and employment matters. Larry is the former Region IV Counsel for OSHA in the Office of the Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor. He is nationally known for his expertise in Occupational Safety and Health

-- Moderator: R. Pepper Crutcher, General Counsel to the Mississippi Manufacturers Association. Pepper Crutcher advises and advocates for a wide range of Southeast U.S., private sector employers. As the leader of the firm's Affordable Care Act practice, Pepper also helps employers, insurers, brokers, administrators and providers achieve ACA compliance and appeal ACA assessments. Labor negotiation and arbitration, OSHA, work site immigration enforcement, and intellectual property protection also are in Pepper's portfolio.]]>3204cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-the-dictatorship-of-w
Featuring:

-- Stephen Soukup, Author, The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business

-- Interviewer: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47953527Thu, 16 Dec 2021 21:36:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join us for the latest installment in our Talks with Authors Series, in which author Stephen Soukup sits down for an interview with Eileen O’Connor about his book The Dictatorship of Woke Capital. Perhaps you recall learning that the...
Featuring:

-- Stephen Soukup, Author, The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business

-- Interviewer: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>3526cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-whole-Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined in full by Justices Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, with Justice Thomas joining as to all but one part. Justices Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined, while Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined.

A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join us to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.


Featuring:


Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

---
This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47953517Thu, 16 Dec 2021 21:34:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and dismissed the federal government's suit against Texas in United States v. Texas. The Court held 8-1 in Jackson that plaintiff abortion providers can pursue claims...Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined in full by Justices Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, with Justice Thomas joining as to all but one part. Justices Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined, while Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined.

A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join us to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.


Featuring:


Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

---
This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3542cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-litigatioFeaturing:
Richard A. Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Student Member, Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group Executive Committee; 3L Student, Harvard Law School
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47922991Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:53:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Tuesday, November 30, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra. One of the certified questions asks the Court to revisit the famed Chevron doctrine which has been subjected to much criticism since its...Featuring:
Richard A. Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Student Member, Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group Executive Committee; 3L Student, Harvard Law School
---
To register, click the link above.]]>2673cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-new-york-Oral argument in this case was held on November 3. In this webinar, two Second Amendment experts will discuss the arguments, as well as the effects that the decision, whichever way it goes, might have on government power to enforce the criminal law.
Featuring:
Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason Univeristy, Antonin Scalia Law School
Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Nelson Lund, Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47921736Tue, 14 Dec 2021 18:23:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual Americans to keep a handgun in their homes for self-defense. In...Oral argument in this case was held on November 3. In this webinar, two Second Amendment experts will discuss the arguments, as well as the effects that the decision, whichever way it goes, might have on government power to enforce the criminal law.
Featuring:
Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason Univeristy, Antonin Scalia Law School
Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Nelson Lund, Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
---
To register, click the link above.]]>3534cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-cWe are joined by two experts, one of whom will argue the case before the Supreme Court for the petitioner, to discuss the legal issues involved and the implications of oral arguments.
Featuring:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Daniel Mach, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief
---
This Zoom event is open to the press and public.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47873507Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:29:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carson v. Makin on the question of whether a state violates the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally...We are joined by two experts, one of whom will argue the case before the Supreme Court for the petitioner, to discuss the legal issues involved and the implications of oral arguments.
Featuring:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Daniel Mach, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief
---
This Zoom event is open to the press and public.]]>3549cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-dThis distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed.
You can view our pre-argument webinar here.
Featuring:

Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center, Independent Women's Forum]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47873418Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:23:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective...This distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed.
You can view our pre-argument webinar here.
Featuring:

Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center, Independent Women's Forum]]>3672cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-vaccination-mandatesFeaturing:
Aaron Siri, Managing Partner, Siri Glimstad
Moderator: Robert Destro, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America
---
To receive a copy of the documents referenced during this webinar, please email pg@fed-soc.org with the subject line "Vaccination Mandate Documents."]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47608166Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:53:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe ongoing, high-decibel, public debate over vaccine mandates has entered its litigation phase. Please join us for a conversation with one of the country’s leading vaccine and civil rights litigators, Aaron Siri of Siri|Glimstad. Mr. Siri...Featuring:
Aaron Siri, Managing Partner, Siri Glimstad
Moderator: Robert Destro, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America
---
To receive a copy of the documents referenced during this webinar, please email pg@fed-soc.org with the subject line "Vaccination Mandate Documents."]]>3438cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-pre-argument-webinar-doIn defending its ban on abortions after 15-weeks gestation, Mississippi asks the Court to overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, arguing that the cases were egregiously wrong because a right to abortion has no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. Mississippi further argues that the various frameworks have proved hopelessly unworkable; that the cases have inflicted severe damage on democratic self-government, on the country, and on the understanding that the Supreme Court is a neutral arbiter of the law; that they have been overtaken by a better legal and factual understanding; that reliance interests do not support upholding Roe and that accordingly stare decisis principles counsel in favor of overruling them. Respondents argue that the viability standard is the central line that underpins these rulings, and that the Court's decision to retain it in Casey, in the face of repeated requests to abandon it both in the years leading up to Casey and in Casey itself, makes the bar for overruling it particularly high. They further note stare decisis's centrality to the rule of law and to public confidence in the courts. They add that the viability standard is well-grounded in the Constitution and that a right to abortion remains critical to women's equal participation in the workforce.
Our panel explored these and other arguments and considered whether overruling these decisions, maintaining the viability line in some form, or some other approach best serves the rule of law.
Featuring:

Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, formerly U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47607849Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:29:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective...In defending its ban on abortions after 15-weeks gestation, Mississippi asks the Court to overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, arguing that the cases were egregiously wrong because a right to abortion has no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. Mississippi further argues that the various frameworks have proved hopelessly unworkable; that the cases have inflicted severe damage on democratic self-government, on the country, and on the understanding that the Supreme Court is a neutral arbiter of the law; that they have been overtaken by a better legal and factual understanding; that reliance interests do not support upholding Roe and that accordingly stare decisis principles counsel in favor of overruling them. Respondents argue that the viability standard is the central line that underpins these rulings, and that the Court's decision to retain it in Casey, in the face of repeated requests to abandon it both in the years leading up to Casey and in Casey itself, makes the bar for overruling it particularly high. They further note stare decisis's centrality to the rule of law and to public confidence in the courts. They add that the viability standard is well-grounded in the Constitution and that a right to abortion remains critical to women's equal participation in the workforce.
Our panel explored these and other arguments and considered whether overruling these decisions, maintaining the viability line in some form, or some other approach best serves the rule of law.
Featuring:

Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, formerly U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>4162cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-seat-at-the-sittingThe case names, issues, and dates of argument are listed below:

Whole Women's Health v. Jackson – Abortion – November 1
United States v. Texas (2021) - Abortion, Federal Jurisdiction - November 1
Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson – First Amendment – November 2
Badgerow v. Walters – Arbitration – November 2
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen – Second Amendment – November 3
FBI v. Fazaga – National Security – November 8
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M – Intellectual Property – November 8
United States v. Vaello Madero – Equal Protection challenge to Social Security – November 9
Ramirez v. Collier – Religious Freedom – November 9
Austin v. Reagan National Advertising - First Amendment – November 10

Featuring:

Hon. Beth A. Williams, Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown
Jennifer Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, Catholic University of America

---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47274983Tue, 02 Nov 2021 14:47:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for the second episode of the Federalist Society’s Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts will convene to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket and debrief oral arguments from the...The case names, issues, and dates of argument are listed below:

Whole Women's Health v. Jackson – Abortion – November 1
United States v. Texas (2021) - Abortion, Federal Jurisdiction - November 1
Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson – First Amendment – November 2
Badgerow v. Walters – Arbitration – November 2
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen – Second Amendment – November 3
FBI v. Fazaga – National Security – November 8
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M – Intellectual Property – November 8
United States v. Vaello Madero – Equal Protection challenge to Social Security – November 9
Ramirez v. Collier – Religious Freedom – November 9
Austin v. Reagan National Advertising - First Amendment – November 10

Featuring:

Hon. Beth A. Williams, Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown
Jennifer Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, Catholic University of America

---
To register, click the link above.]]>5422cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-ftc-in-the-current-administration-bu
Featuring:

-- Adam Cella, Attorney Advisor, Office of Hon. Christine Wilson, Federal Trade Commission

-- Debbie Feinstein, Partner and Chair, Global Antitrust, Arnold & Porter

-- Jessica Rich, Of Counsel, Kelley Drye; former Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission

-- Moderator: Svetlana Gans, former Chief of Staff, Federal Trade Commission

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47274940Tue, 02 Nov 2021 14:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe last few months have seen significant changes at the Federal Trade Commission. The new FTC has set an ambitious agenda that revives the agency, propelling it in directions we haven’t previously seen. The FTC is poised to engage in wide-ranging...
Featuring:

-- Adam Cella, Attorney Advisor, Office of Hon. Christine Wilson, Federal Trade Commission

-- Debbie Feinstein, Partner and Chair, Global Antitrust, Arnold & Porter

-- Jessica Rich, Of Counsel, Kelley Drye; former Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission

-- Moderator: Svetlana Gans, former Chief of Staff, Federal Trade Commission

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3570cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/china-fully-engaged-in-latin-america-wha
Featuring:

-- Dr. Evan Ellis, Latin America Research Professor, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute

-- Ryan Berg, Senior Fellow, Americas Program; Head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies

-- Erick A. Brimen, CEO & Chairman of the Board, Honduras Próspera

-- Moderator: Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47165339Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyChina’s Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) global ambitions have involved more than seventy countries. For the United States, these BRI developments and independent influence operations in South America raise security and strategy concerns. In the...
Featuring:

-- Dr. Evan Ellis, Latin America Research Professor, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute

-- Ryan Berg, Senior Fellow, Americas Program; Head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies

-- Erick A. Brimen, CEO & Chairman of the Board, Honduras Próspera

-- Moderator: Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University]]>3985cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/discussion-the-ocrs-investigation-of-staOpponents of the mask mandate bans argue that students with disabilities cannot access public education if other students and staff are not required to be masked. Proponents of the bans argue that parents should not be deprived of the right to make health decisions for their children. Other arguments concern the proper scope and limits on federal involvement in school matters.
Featuring:

Prof. Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Sarah Perry, Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation, Edwin Meese Center
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47085289Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:36:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has launched an investigation into the legality of state bans forbidding schools from imposing mask mandates on their students. OCR indicated two major bases for potential illegality:...Opponents of the mask mandate bans argue that students with disabilities cannot access public education if other students and staff are not required to be masked. Proponents of the bans argue that parents should not be deprived of the right to make health decisions for their children. Other arguments concern the proper scope and limits on federal involvement in school matters.
Featuring:

Prof. Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Sarah Perry, Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation, Edwin Meese Center
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3551cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/what-is-the-right-way-forward-on-clemencFeaturing:

Rachel Barkow, Vice Dean and Charles Seligson Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, NYU School of Law
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel at the Council on Criminal Justice; Senior Advisor to Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47048872Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:28:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Biden administration has announced it is considering clemency for convicted drug offenders among the approximately 4,000 prisoners released early from federal prison due to the pandemic, who are subject to being returned when the national...Featuring:

Rachel Barkow, Vice Dean and Charles Seligson Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, NYU School of Law
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel at the Council on Criminal Justice; Senior Advisor to Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation]]>3393cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-doj-domestic-terrorism-and-school-bo
Featuring:

-- Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former United States Attorney General]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47048845Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWidespread concern over continued covid-19 related measures and the implementation of critical race theory in public school curricula has prompted many people to speak out at school board meetings in recent months. On September 29, 2021, the National...
Featuring:

-- Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former United States Attorney General]]>2829cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-eviction-moratoriaCDC’s order was challenged almost immediately by a variety of public interest groups on a variety of statutory and constitutional grounds. At the heart of these challenges was an objection to the agency’s determination that property owners could be forced to turn over their real property to tenants who refused to pay rent.
The order was, in months-long increments, in existence for most of the past year. Meanwhile, several district courts and the Sixth Circuit invalidated the moratorium, but only with respect to individual litigants. After one trip to the Supreme Court, another extension, and a final stop back at the Supreme Court, the moratorium ended. However, related rules issued by agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as local eviction moratoria, continue around the country.
This litigation update by Caleb Kruckenberg of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which filed the first challenge to the CDC order, discussed the origins of the moratorium, including relevant congressional action (and inaction), the legal challenges to the moratorium, recent and possible future extensions of the moratorium, and why this case was bound for resolution by the Supreme Court.
Featuring:

Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46979613Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:07:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn September 1, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took a step into nationwide housing policy, and issued a nationwide ban on evictions. With the order, the federal agency invoked a little-known WWII-era statute that empowered...CDC’s order was challenged almost immediately by a variety of public interest groups on a variety of statutory and constitutional grounds. At the heart of these challenges was an objection to the agency’s determination that property owners could be forced to turn over their real property to tenants who refused to pay rent.
The order was, in months-long increments, in existence for most of the past year. Meanwhile, several district courts and the Sixth Circuit invalidated the moratorium, but only with respect to individual litigants. After one trip to the Supreme Court, another extension, and a final stop back at the Supreme Court, the moratorium ended. However, related rules issued by agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as local eviction moratoria, continue around the country.
This litigation update by Caleb Kruckenberg of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which filed the first challenge to the CDC order, discussed the origins of the moratorium, including relevant congressional action (and inaction), the legal challenges to the moratorium, recent and possible future extensions of the moratorium, and why this case was bound for resolution by the Supreme Court.
Featuring:

Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>3190cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/hud-and-the-disparate-impact-ruleCritics of Secretary Fudge’s proposed rule, including Ranking Member Senator Pat Toomey, argue that the change not only flouts the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities but also ultimately hurt consumers. Proponents argue that the change will move the housing market towards greater equity. Our panel of experts with a diversity of views discussed the pros and cons in a teleforum on October 11, 2021.
Featuring:

Paul Compton, Founding Partner, Compton Jones Dresher
Moderator: Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46979564Thu, 14 Oct 2021 20:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 25, 2021, President Biden’s newly appointed Housing Secretary Marcia Fudge proposed to rescind a Secretary Carson-era disparate impact rule designed to implement the Fair Housing Act. In its place, HUD would reinstate the 2013...Critics of Secretary Fudge’s proposed rule, including Ranking Member Senator Pat Toomey, argue that the change not only flouts the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities but also ultimately hurt consumers. Proponents argue that the change will move the housing market towards greater equity. Our panel of experts with a diversity of views discussed the pros and cons in a teleforum on October 11, 2021.
Featuring:

Paul Compton, Founding Partner, Compton Jones Dresher
Moderator: Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>3046cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/cancel-culture-and-higher-education
Join us for Part 1 of a thoughtful series discussing cancel culture and its effect on American culture featuring:

J.C. Hallman, an acclaimed author who wrote a piece entitled “In Defense of Cancel Culture” following the publication of the Harper’s Magazine letter on Justice and Open Debate.

Dr. Charles Murray, the F.A. Haye Chair Emeritus in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute who experienced academic and social backlash notably his publication of The Bell Curve.

Featuring:

-- J.C. Hallman, Author and Columnist

-- Dr. Charles Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46851337Wed, 06 Oct 2021 16:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyHas American higher education gone too far — or in the wrong direction — in how it sanctions normatively disfavored conduct? Some of these sanctions (“cancellations," as they are sometimes called) are ephemeral and others career-ending. Some are based...
Join us for Part 1 of a thoughtful series discussing cancel culture and its effect on American culture featuring:

J.C. Hallman, an acclaimed author who wrote a piece entitled “In Defense of Cancel Culture” following the publication of the Harper’s Magazine letter on Justice and Open Debate.

Dr. Charles Murray, the F.A. Haye Chair Emeritus in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute who experienced academic and social backlash notably his publication of The Bell Curve.

Featuring:

-- J.C. Hallman, Author and Columnist

-- Dr. Charles Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>3475cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/redistricting-discussing-the-john-r-lewi
Featuring:

-- Mark Braden, Of Counsel, BakerHostetler

-- Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute

-- Moderator: Maya Noronha, Visiting Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46833166Tue, 05 Oct 2021 16:28:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis webinar addresses the impact that changes proposed in HR 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, may have on drawing voting districts and litigating redistricting cases and features two renowned voting rights experts....
Featuring:

-- Mark Braden, Of Counsel, BakerHostetler

-- Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute

-- Moderator: Maya Noronha, Visiting Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center]]>3524cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-alabama-association-of
Featuring:

-- Brett Shumate, Partner, Jones Day
-- Moderator: Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46763499Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:54:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had exceeded its authority in issuing a nationwide ban on evictions. Brett Shumate,...
Featuring:

-- Brett Shumate, Partner, Jones Day
-- Moderator: Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center]]>3053cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/corporate-social-responsibility-investmeA distinguished panel joins us to discuss a new paper, titled "Corporate Collusion" and written by former U.S. Ambassador and White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, and to offer their differing views on the legal issues involved, including ESG, ERISA requirements, fiduciary duty, and more.
Additional reading includes: "What Milton Friedman Missed About Social Inequality" by Leo Strine, Jr. and Joey Zwillinger; "Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy," by Leo Strine, Jr.
Featuring:

David J. Berger, Partner, Wilson Sonsini
Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Hon. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Hon. Leo E. Strine, Jr., Of Counsel, Wachtell Lipton; former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Patomak Global Partners; former Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46763428Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:50:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEnvironmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing is growing in popularity, especially after major investment firm BlackRock signaled support for what it called "ESG Integration," or the practice of incorporating material ESG information...A distinguished panel joins us to discuss a new paper, titled "Corporate Collusion" and written by former U.S. Ambassador and White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, and to offer their differing views on the legal issues involved, including ESG, ERISA requirements, fiduciary duty, and more.
Additional reading includes: "What Milton Friedman Missed About Social Inequality" by Leo Strine, Jr. and Joey Zwillinger; "Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy," by Leo Strine, Jr.
Featuring:

David J. Berger, Partner, Wilson Sonsini
Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Hon. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Hon. Leo E. Strine, Jr., Of Counsel, Wachtell Lipton; former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Patomak Global Partners; former Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]]>5378cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/can-congress-forbid-a-state-from-cuttingThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio permanently enjoined application of the Act’s tax-cut prohibition to Ohio, concluding that it exceeded Congress’ authority. Other courts have dismissed the suits as premature or dismissed them for lack of standing.
The authority of Congress to dictate terms to the states is a perennial issue. It has been addressed before in numerous contexts, and the outcome of the current conflict could have far reaching implications.
Brett Nolan, Deputy Solicitor General of Kentucky and Professor Steven Schwinn of the University of Illinois Chicago Law School join for a webinar discussion moderated by Hon. Eileen J. O’Connor.
Featuring:

Brett Nolan, Deputy Solicitor General of Kentucky
Steven Schwinn, Professor of Law, University of Illinois Chicago Law School
Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46730484Tue, 28 Sep 2021 20:27:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act (the Act). Purportedly intended to help the U.S. economy recover from the COVID virus and the steps taken to prevent its spread, it calls for the Federal Treasury to...The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio permanently enjoined application of the Act’s tax-cut prohibition to Ohio, concluding that it exceeded Congress’ authority. Other courts have dismissed the suits as premature or dismissed them for lack of standing.
The authority of Congress to dictate terms to the states is a perennial issue. It has been addressed before in numerous contexts, and the outcome of the current conflict could have far reaching implications.
Brett Nolan, Deputy Solicitor General of Kentucky and Professor Steven Schwinn of the University of Illinois Chicago Law School join for a webinar discussion moderated by Hon. Eileen J. O’Connor.
Featuring:

Brett Nolan, Deputy Solicitor General of Kentucky
Steven Schwinn, Professor of Law, University of Illinois Chicago Law School
Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>3585cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/search-warrants-the-attorney-client-privFeaturing:

William McClintock, Associate, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46710735Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:59:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn July, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Harbor Healthcare System v. United States, addressing the application of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) and motions to return documents improperly seized by the government in...Featuring:

William McClintock, Associate, King & Spalding]]>2542cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fireside-chat-alex-pollock-and-fifty-yeaFeaturing:

Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R. Street Institute, Author of Fifty Years Without Gold
Moderator: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Chairman, Federalist Society Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46656074Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFifty years ago, on August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon put the economic and financial world into a new era. Through his decision to "close the gold window," he fundamentally changed the international monetary system into the system of today,...Featuring:

Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R. Street Institute, Author of Fifty Years Without Gold
Moderator: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Chairman, Federalist Society Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group]]>3742cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-woke-inc-inside-corpo---
A young entrepreneur makes the case that politics has no place in business, and sets out a new vision for the future of American capitalism. There’s a new invisible force at work in our economic and cultural lives. It affects every advertisement we see and every product we buy, from our morning coffee to a new pair of shoes. “Stakeholder capitalism” makes rosy promises of a better, more diverse, environmentally-friendly world, but in reality this ideology championed by America’s business and political leaders robs us of our money, our voice, and our identity. Vivek Ramaswamy is a traitor to his class. He’s founded multibillion-dollar enterprises, led a biotech company as CEO, he became a hedge fund partner in his 20s, trained as a scientist at Harvard and a lawyer at Yale, and grew up the child of immigrants in a small town in Ohio. Now he takes us behind the scenes into corporate boardrooms and five-star conferences, into Ivy League classrooms and secretive nonprofits, to reveal the defining scam of our century. The modern woke-industrial complex divides us as a people. By mixing morality with consumerism, America’s elites prey on our innermost insecurities about who we really are. They sell us cheap social causes and skin-deep identities to satisfy our hunger for a cause and our search for meaning, at a moment when we as Americans lack both. This book not only rips back the curtain on the new corporatist agenda, it offers a better way forward. America’s elites may want to sort us into demographic boxes, but we don’t have to stay there. Woke, Inc. begins as a critique of stakeholder capitalism and ends with an exploration of what it means to be an American in 2021—a journey that begins with cynicism and ends with hope.
Featuring:

Vivek Ramaswamy, Author, Woke Inc.: Inside Corproate America's Social Justice Scam
Interviewer: Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46519419Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:24:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin Mr. Peter Kirsanow and Mr. Vivek Ramaswamy in the latest installment of our Talks with Authors series to discuss Ramaswamy's newly published book: Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam. A description of the book originally...---
A young entrepreneur makes the case that politics has no place in business, and sets out a new vision for the future of American capitalism. There’s a new invisible force at work in our economic and cultural lives. It affects every advertisement we see and every product we buy, from our morning coffee to a new pair of shoes. “Stakeholder capitalism” makes rosy promises of a better, more diverse, environmentally-friendly world, but in reality this ideology championed by America’s business and political leaders robs us of our money, our voice, and our identity. Vivek Ramaswamy is a traitor to his class. He’s founded multibillion-dollar enterprises, led a biotech company as CEO, he became a hedge fund partner in his 20s, trained as a scientist at Harvard and a lawyer at Yale, and grew up the child of immigrants in a small town in Ohio. Now he takes us behind the scenes into corporate boardrooms and five-star conferences, into Ivy League classrooms and secretive nonprofits, to reveal the defining scam of our century. The modern woke-industrial complex divides us as a people. By mixing morality with consumerism, America’s elites prey on our innermost insecurities about who we really are. They sell us cheap social causes and skin-deep identities to satisfy our hunger for a cause and our search for meaning, at a moment when we as Americans lack both. This book not only rips back the curtain on the new corporatist agenda, it offers a better way forward. America’s elites may want to sort us into demographic boxes, but we don’t have to stay there. Woke, Inc. begins as a critique of stakeholder capitalism and ends with an exploration of what it means to be an American in 2021—a journey that begins with cynicism and ends with hope.
Featuring:

Vivek Ramaswamy, Author, Woke Inc.: Inside Corproate America's Social Justice Scam
Interviewer: Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP]]>3619cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/hijabs-dreads-and-saturdays-off-employeeFeaturing:

Rachel Morrison, Policy Analyst, Ethics & Public Policy Center; former Attorney Advisor, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Moderator: Evelyn Hildebrand, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46449098Thu, 09 Sep 2021 19:58:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis webinar is the first in a two-part series covering employee and employer religious rights and related labor issues. What are employees' rights to express or practice their religion at work? Can they be exempt from dress codes or grooming...Featuring:

Rachel Morrison, Policy Analyst, Ethics & Public Policy Center; former Attorney Advisor, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Moderator: Evelyn Hildebrand, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3414cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-scotus-and-the-texas-hFeaturing:

Edward Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46449054Thu, 09 Sep 2021 19:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn September 1, 2021, the Texas Heartbeat bill went into effect, banning abortions as soon as cardiac activity is present in an unborn child—around six weeks gestation. The bill also allows private citizens to sue and enforce the new law....Featuring:

Edward Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2517cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/taxation-by-international-consent
-- Michael Ramsey, San Diego Law School (author of “Evading the Treaty Power?” FIU L.Rev 2016)

-- Joshua Wu, former Deputy Assistant AG, Tax Division

-- Stephen Krasner, Professor of International Relations, Stanford University (author of Power, The State and Sovereignty).

-- Moderator: Jeremy Rabkin, Scalia Law School.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46333456Wed, 01 Sep 2021 18:51:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFinance ministers from leading industrial states have been trying, this summer, to work out an agreement on a minimum rate for corporate taxes. Does it matter that this agreement won’t be adopted by the constitutional procedure for making treaties?...
-- Michael Ramsey, San Diego Law School (author of “Evading the Treaty Power?” FIU L.Rev 2016)

-- Joshua Wu, former Deputy Assistant AG, Tax Division

-- Stephen Krasner, Professor of International Relations, Stanford University (author of Power, The State and Sovereignty).

-- Moderator: Jeremy Rabkin, Scalia Law School.]]>3483cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-brach-v-newsomFeaturing:

Robert Dunn, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLP
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Division One, Arizona Court of Appeals

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46316095Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:01:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn July 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that California's recent school closures violated parental rights to direct the education of children, and reversed the lower court's decision upholding California's regulations as...Featuring:

Robert Dunn, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLP
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Division One, Arizona Court of Appeals

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2966cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fireside-chat-professor-george-la-noue
Featuring:


Professor George La Noue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law



* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46316053Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:57:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessor George La Noue joined us to discuss his recently published article, “The Race Card in ARPA’s Food Supply Deck,” published by the Federalist Society Review on July 12, 2021. In his article, Professor La Noue discused the...
Featuring:


Professor George La Noue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law



* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3341cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-biden-administration-s-housing-policSecretary Fudge rescinded Secretary Carson’s interpretation of the disparate impact rule, rescinded the Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice Rule, and reinstated the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.
Featuring:

Howard Husock, Senior Fellow, Domestic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Bryan Greene, Vice President, Policy Advocacy, National Association of Realtors
Daniel Huff, former General Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46303808Mon, 30 Aug 2021 21:26:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a January 26, 2021 White House Memorandum, President Biden directed the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reexamine actions taken during the Trump presidency, and ordering the Secretary to ensure the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which bans...Secretary Fudge rescinded Secretary Carson’s interpretation of the disparate impact rule, rescinded the Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice Rule, and reinstated the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.
Featuring:

Howard Husock, Senior Fellow, Domestic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Bryan Greene, Vice President, Policy Advocacy, National Association of Realtors
Daniel Huff, former General Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3460cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/vaccine-mandates-and-exemptions-public-u
Featuring:

-- Prof. Ronald J. Colombo, Professor of Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University

-- Moderator: Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46144968Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:22:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs students prepare return to universities across the country, many schools are putting in place Covid vaccine mandates. These mandates require proof of vaccination, and typically include medical and religious exemptions. But, as Professor Ronald...
Featuring:

-- Prof. Ronald J. Colombo, Professor of Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University

-- Moderator: Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3342cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-crowe-v-oregon-state-b
The case landed in the Ninth Circuit which affirmed the district court without deciding whether the controversial comments were germane to the bar’s purpose. Instead, the Court held that the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Keller v. State Bar of California foreclosed the plaintiff’s speech claim, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that since Abood—which underwrote Keller—had been overruled, exacting scrutiny governed speech claims in the context of mandatory bar membership.

The plaintiffs appeal this question to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to either read Keller to require exacting scrutiny or to overrule Keller and provide clarity to the courts across the country that are fielding free speech claims from similarly situated attorneys who are also members of integrated state bars.

Featuring:

-- Jacob Huebert, Senior Attorney, Goldwater Institute

-- Moderator: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46131256Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:53:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast year, the Oregon state bar Bulletin ran two controversial comments. State bar members objected, arguing that because membership in the state bar is mandatory, publication of the comments constituted impermissible political commentary, and...
The case landed in the Ninth Circuit which affirmed the district court without deciding whether the controversial comments were germane to the bar’s purpose. Instead, the Court held that the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Keller v. State Bar of California foreclosed the plaintiff’s speech claim, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that since Abood—which underwrote Keller—had been overruled, exacting scrutiny governed speech claims in the context of mandatory bar membership.

The plaintiffs appeal this question to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to either read Keller to require exacting scrutiny or to overrule Keller and provide clarity to the courts across the country that are fielding free speech claims from similarly situated attorneys who are also members of integrated state bars.

Featuring:

-- Jacob Huebert, Senior Attorney, Goldwater Institute

-- Moderator: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3023cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-intervarsity-christian
The University of Iowa deregistered two Christian student groups, finding that the groups violated the University’s “Human Rights Policy” by requiring their membership and/or leadership to sign a statement of faith in order to join. The first group—Business Leaders in Christ—sued and successfully received a preliminary injunction. Following that litigation, the University reviewed its human rights policy and then deregistered the second group—InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. InterVarsity fought the deregistration, then sued alleging the application of the human rights policy was discriminatory and arguing First Amendment free speech, free association, and free exercise violations in addition to several state law claims.

Not only did the District Court enter summary judgment for InterVarsity, but the Court also denied individual University defendants qualified immunity relying on the earlier Business Leaders in Christ preliminary injunction grant. The University appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed in a decision with implications for campus free speech, religious liberty after Fulton, and qualified immunity.

Featuring:

-- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Propserity; Senior Fellow for Free Speech, Charles Koch Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45969481Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:11:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit issued a decision in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. University of Iowa et al. A three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Loken, Grasz, and Kobes held that University...
The University of Iowa deregistered two Christian student groups, finding that the groups violated the University’s “Human Rights Policy” by requiring their membership and/or leadership to sign a statement of faith in order to join. The first group—Business Leaders in Christ—sued and successfully received a preliminary injunction. Following that litigation, the University reviewed its human rights policy and then deregistered the second group—InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. InterVarsity fought the deregistration, then sued alleging the application of the human rights policy was discriminatory and arguing First Amendment free speech, free association, and free exercise violations in addition to several state law claims.

Not only did the District Court enter summary judgment for InterVarsity, but the Court also denied individual University defendants qualified immunity relying on the earlier Business Leaders in Christ preliminary injunction grant. The University appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed in a decision with implications for campus free speech, religious liberty after Fulton, and qualified immunity.

Featuring:

-- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Propserity; Senior Fellow for Free Speech, Charles Koch Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2247cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/gender-based-board-quotas-the-fourteenthThe Ninth Circuit disagreed, allowing Meland’s suit to go forward by finding that the practical effect of SB 826 was to govern shareholders and direct them to vote on the basis of gender to avoid the imposition of fines or penalties for noncompliance. The court further held that Meland’s suit alleged a direct harm and did not rely on prudential standing since he alleged personal harm rather than injury to the corporate entity.
Featuring:

Ann Ravel, Lecuter, Berkeley Law; Former Commissioner and Chair, Federal Election Commission
Anastasia P. Boden, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45955465Tue, 03 Aug 2021 19:57:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled a shareholder-plaintiff had standing to sue California’s Secretary of State. Creighton Meland, a shareholder at OSI Systems, Inc., sued alleging that Senate Bill 826, which was...The Ninth Circuit disagreed, allowing Meland’s suit to go forward by finding that the practical effect of SB 826 was to govern shareholders and direct them to vote on the basis of gender to avoid the imposition of fines or penalties for noncompliance. The court further held that Meland’s suit alleged a direct harm and did not rely on prudential standing since he alleged personal harm rather than injury to the corporate entity.
Featuring:

Ann Ravel, Lecuter, Berkeley Law; Former Commissioner and Chair, Federal Election Commission
Anastasia P. Boden, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3456cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-webinar-on-central-bank-digital-curren
Controversies focus on CBDC implications for privacy, greater personal financial inclusion, government control of credit, innovation, government assumption of banking activities, broadening the tax base, and more.

Featuring:

-- Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Co. Inc.

-- Chris Giancarlo, Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

-- Peter C. Earle, Writer, American Institute for Economic Research

-- Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R. Street Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45951148Tue, 03 Aug 2021 14:37:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith expressions ranging from enthusiasm to serious interest, central banks from China to Europe have been actively exploring the potential for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). On June 28, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman for Supervision...
Controversies focus on CBDC implications for privacy, greater personal financial inclusion, government control of credit, innovation, government assumption of banking activities, broadening the tax base, and more.

Featuring:

-- Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Co. Inc.

-- Chris Giancarlo, Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

-- Peter C. Earle, Writer, American Institute for Economic Research

-- Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R. Street Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3502cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/foreign-policy-in-the-biden-administrati
Featuring:

-- Hon. Nazak Nikakhtar, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP. Nazak served as Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration. She also served as the U.S. government’s top official for export controls on dual-use items and technologies, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties as Under Secretary for the Bureau of Industry and Security.

-- Adam J. Szubin, Of Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. Mr. Szubin served for two years as Acting Treasury Department Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. During his nearly 13 year tenure at the Treasury, Mr. Szubin served as the Director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for nine years and Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

-- Moderator: Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45941601Mon, 02 Aug 2021 21:04:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis virtual event examined current national security issues, including relations with China, as well as coordination with allies, utilization of available legal tools, and whether those tools might be effective. Featuring: -- Hon. Nazak Nikakhtar,...
Featuring:

-- Hon. Nazak Nikakhtar, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP. Nazak served as Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration. She also served as the U.S. government’s top official for export controls on dual-use items and technologies, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties as Under Secretary for the Bureau of Industry and Security.

-- Adam J. Szubin, Of Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. Mr. Szubin served for two years as Acting Treasury Department Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. During his nearly 13 year tenure at the Treasury, Mr. Szubin served as the Director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for nine years and Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

-- Moderator: Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3367cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/congressional-oversight-and-investigatio
Featuring:

-- Ashley Callen, Deputy Staff Director, House Oversight and Reform Committee

-- Daniel Goshorn, Chief Investigative Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

-- Allison Murphy, Former Chief Oversight Counsel of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Majority Staff; Partner in the Government, Regulatory & Internal Investigations Practice Group, Kirkland & Ellis

-- Christopher Armstrong, Former Chief Oversight Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance; Partner, Holland & Knight LLP

-- Moderator: Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45941031Mon, 02 Aug 2021 20:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith Democrats holding power in both houses of Congress and the White House, how will congressional oversight and investigations affect private industry and the Biden Administration during the 117th Congress? What should we expect if Republicans take...
Featuring:

-- Ashley Callen, Deputy Staff Director, House Oversight and Reform Committee

-- Daniel Goshorn, Chief Investigative Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

-- Allison Murphy, Former Chief Oversight Counsel of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Majority Staff; Partner in the Government, Regulatory & Internal Investigations Practice Group, Kirkland & Ellis

-- Christopher Armstrong, Former Chief Oversight Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance; Partner, Holland & Knight LLP

-- Moderator: Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3449cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/opioids-in-2021-enforcement-strategies-a
Featuring:

-- Robert M. Duncan, Jr., Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

-- Christina E. Nolan, Shareholder, Sheehey Furlong & Behm PC

-- Prof. Tomas J. Philipson, Daniel Levin Professor of Public Policy, University of Chicago

-- Jeffrey A. Singer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45939145Mon, 02 Aug 2021 17:23:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOpioid deaths in the US rose 29% during the course of the recent COVID pandemic. More than 55,000 Americans die annually from opioid consumption. Overtaken to some extent by other events, the opioid crisis is still with us and might be getting worse....
Featuring:

-- Robert M. Duncan, Jr., Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

-- Christina E. Nolan, Shareholder, Sheehey Furlong & Behm PC

-- Prof. Tomas J. Philipson, Daniel Levin Professor of Public Policy, University of Chicago

-- Jeffrey A. Singer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3536cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-a-dubious-expediency“To uphold the [argument for race-preferential admissions] would call for the sacrifice of principle for the sake of dubious expediency and would represent a retreat in the struggle to assure that each man and woman shall be judged on the basis of individual merit alone, a struggle which has only lately achieved success in removing legal barriers to racial equality.”
In the book, the authors take up the question of race-based preferences in higher education, arguing that mounting empirical evidence shows race-based solutions cause long term harm both to intended beneficiaries and to society as a whole.
Featuring:

Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45859988Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:09:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA Dubious Expediency: How Race Preferences Damage Higher Education is a collection of eight essays written by experts in the field examining and analyzing the impact of racial diversity preferences and identity politics in American colleges and...“To uphold the [argument for race-preferential admissions] would call for the sacrifice of principle for the sake of dubious expediency and would represent a retreat in the struggle to assure that each man and woman shall be judged on the basis of individual merit alone, a struggle which has only lately achieved success in removing legal barriers to racial equality.”
In the book, the authors take up the question of race-based preferences in higher education, arguing that mounting empirical evidence shows race-based solutions cause long term harm both to intended beneficiaries and to society as a whole.
Featuring:

Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3716cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/private-entities-and-public-concernBut the growing reliance on big tech platforms, combined with the behavior of such platforms in restricting the scope of permissible speech, has raised concerns across the political spectrum, including among those of generally libertarian policy preferences. And the new interest in considering a range of regulatory options is not breaking down along conventional left/right lines. How should we think about these larger philosophical questions?
Featuring:

Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenker LLC
Genevieve Lakier, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
William Baude, Professor of Law, Aaron Director Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45859958Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:07:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAside from the purely legal questions already addressed in this programming series, how should we think about the practical and philosophical questions at stake? Many of us start with the presumption that the social media companies are private...But the growing reliance on big tech platforms, combined with the behavior of such platforms in restricting the scope of permissible speech, has raised concerns across the political spectrum, including among those of generally libertarian policy preferences. And the new interest in considering a range of regulatory options is not breaking down along conventional left/right lines. How should we think about these larger philosophical questions?
Featuring:

Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenker LLC
Genevieve Lakier, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
William Baude, Professor of Law, Aaron Director Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>5929cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-implications-of-the-latest-congressi
This latest cycle of CRA actions merit general exploration as well as consideration of the specific rules at issue. What process did Congress use to disapprove the three rules? Why did it use the CRA relatively sparingly this year, and what will the impact be of the three disapprovals? The answers to the last two questions are arguably related. When Congress uses the CRA to repeal federal regulations, the respective agencies are automatically barred from issuing another rule that is “substantially the same” as the one disapproved without new statutory authorization. Though there is no court ruling on what the CRA’s anti-circumvention clause means, the resulting uncertainty may have skewed the CRA’s use in interesting ways.

Join Todd Gaziano and Professor Jonathan Adler discuss the CRA, how it has been used, and the ramifications of its use on the three rules this year and on future federal regulations.

Featuring:

-- Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

-- Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45713155Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:57:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Congressional Review Act (CRA) was used in 2017 to overturn 15 rules issued near the end of the Obama administration. The shift in political control in the White House and Congress this year set the stage for a possible repeat with respect to...
This latest cycle of CRA actions merit general exploration as well as consideration of the specific rules at issue. What process did Congress use to disapprove the three rules? Why did it use the CRA relatively sparingly this year, and what will the impact be of the three disapprovals? The answers to the last two questions are arguably related. When Congress uses the CRA to repeal federal regulations, the respective agencies are automatically barred from issuing another rule that is “substantially the same” as the one disapproved without new statutory authorization. Though there is no court ruling on what the CRA’s anti-circumvention clause means, the resulting uncertainty may have skewed the CRA’s use in interesting ways.

Join Todd Gaziano and Professor Jonathan Adler discuss the CRA, how it has been used, and the ramifications of its use on the three rules this year and on future federal regulations.

Featuring:

-- Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

-- Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3919cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-transu
Although the initial class contained 8,185 members, only 1,853 class members incurred harm since Transunion only conveyed credit reports flags for that subset to third parties during the relevant period.

The District Court ruled the whole 8,185 member class had standing to sue. The Supreme Court reversed on the standing issue, ruling that the 6,332 class members whose information had not been conveyed to third parties during the relevant period had no Article III standing since they had suffered no cognizable injury.

Featuring:

-- Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45669228Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:01:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez. In this case, a class of plaintiffs sued the credit reporting company TransUnion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the process...
Although the initial class contained 8,185 members, only 1,853 class members incurred harm since Transunion only conveyed credit reports flags for that subset to third parties during the relevant period.

The District Court ruled the whole 8,185 member class had standing to sue. The Supreme Court reversed on the standing issue, ruling that the 6,332 class members whose information had not been conveyed to third parties during the relevant period had no Article III standing since they had suffered no cognizable injury.

Featuring:

-- Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>1587cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-penneaChief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Barrett filed a dissent joined by Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
Featuring:

Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45669149Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:52:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar Penneast Pipeline Co., exercising federal eminent domain authority under the Natural Gas Act, from suing the State of New Jersey to acquire state-owned property to...Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Barrett filed a dissent joined by Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
Featuring:

Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2990cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/severability-and-article-iii-powersThis distinguished panel will explore the foundations of the severability doctrine and the authority of Article III judges in such cases. Panelists will offer their differing views of severability and discuss where the doctrine may be headed.
Featuring:

Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center
Prof. Kevin C. Walsh, Assistant Professor, University of Richmond School of Law
Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45668992Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:36:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat should the Supreme Court do when it finds one provision of a statute unconstitutional? There is a significant split between current Justices on the question where Congress has not provided express instructions on severance within the statute....This distinguished panel will explore the foundations of the severability doctrine and the authority of Article III judges in such cases. Panelists will offer their differing views of severability and discuss where the doctrine may be headed.
Featuring:

Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center
Prof. Kevin C. Walsh, Assistant Professor, University of Richmond School of Law
Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>5127cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-brnoviAlthough the District Court found no violation of the Voting Rights Act and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed finding disparate impact and that the District Court had clearly erred in finding no discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s decision, holding 6-3 that Arizona’s voting rules did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the ballot collection measure was not enacted with discriminatory intent.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurrence in which Justice Thomas joined. Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented.
Featuring:

Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45668827Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:26:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona v. Democratic National Convention. The DNC sued the state of Arizona arguing that two of the State’s election procedures—refusing to count...Although the District Court found no violation of the Voting Rights Act and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed finding disparate impact and that the District Court had clearly erred in finding no discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s decision, holding 6-3 that Arizona’s voting rules did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the ballot collection measure was not enacted with discriminatory intent.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurrence in which Justice Thomas joined. Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented.
Featuring:

Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2206cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/questions-of-federal-preemptionStates have their own antitrust statutes that can differ from federal standards, and historically have had authority to regulate and set boundaries for material that cannot be published, such as libel, and content harmful to minors. How should we think about state regulatory efforts when applied to technology platforms - is regulatory federalism likely to be beneficial, or should federal law preempt such efforts? What role can or should the FCC play in preempting such state regulation? How does the Dormant Commerce Clause affect state level efforts to regulate content and content moderation policies of social media within state borders?
Featuring:

Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Daniel Francis, Furman Fellow, New York University School of Law
Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45639957Fri, 09 Jul 2021 16:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySeveral states are considering how to regulate the content moderation practices of social media and other tech platforms. Some are focused primarily on protecting a wider range of expressible user viewpoints, while other states are concerned with...States have their own antitrust statutes that can differ from federal standards, and historically have had authority to regulate and set boundaries for material that cannot be published, such as libel, and content harmful to minors. How should we think about state regulatory efforts when applied to technology platforms - is regulatory federalism likely to be beneficial, or should federal law preempt such efforts? What role can or should the FCC play in preempting such state regulation? How does the Dormant Commerce Clause affect state level efforts to regulate content and content moderation policies of social media within state borders?
Featuring:

Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Daniel Francis, Furman Fellow, New York University School of Law
Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>4810cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-nestleThe Ninth Circuit had reversed the District Court, finding that the respondents had adequately pled a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute because the corporate decisions driving contracting with the Ivory Coast farms originated in the United States. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit holding that the presumption against extraterritoriality required plaintiffs to establish relevant conduct in the United States and that general corporate activity like decision making was insufficient.
Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Sotomayor all filed concurring opinions and Justice Alito dissented.
Featuring:

Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
William S. Dodge, John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
Moderator: Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45617751Wed, 07 Jul 2021 19:44:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 decision in Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe et al and the consolidated case of Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I. In this case, six people from Mali who had been trafficked as child slaves onto cocoa farms in the Ivory...The Ninth Circuit had reversed the District Court, finding that the respondents had adequately pled a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute because the corporate decisions driving contracting with the Ivory Coast farms originated in the United States. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit holding that the presumption against extraterritoriality required plaintiffs to establish relevant conduct in the United States and that general corporate activity like decision making was insufficient.
Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Sotomayor all filed concurring opinions and Justice Alito dissented.
Featuring:

Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
William S. Dodge, John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
Moderator: Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3525cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-americTwo conservative organizations refused to submit Schedule B and ultimately sued arguing that the compelled disclosure of their donor lists violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association. Disclosure would make their donors less likely to donate or associate with the charities of their choice.
The case went through multiple appeals to the Ninth Circuit finally arriving in the Supreme Court, which cited NAACP v. Alabama, clarified the applicable exacting scrutiny standard, and held California’s Schedule B disclosure requirement facially unconstitutional.
Joining us to discuss is Mr. Erik Jaffe, a Partner at Schaerr Jaffe LLP and the author of an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.
Featuring:

Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45617604Wed, 07 Jul 2021 19:32:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General of California. California state law required charitable organizations soliciting donors in the state to register with the...Two conservative organizations refused to submit Schedule B and ultimately sued arguing that the compelled disclosure of their donor lists violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association. Disclosure would make their donors less likely to donate or associate with the charities of their choice.
The case went through multiple appeals to the Ninth Circuit finally arriving in the Supreme Court, which cited NAACP v. Alabama, clarified the applicable exacting scrutiny standard, and held California’s Schedule B disclosure requirement facially unconstitutional.
Joining us to discuss is Mr. Erik Jaffe, a Partner at Schaerr Jaffe LLP and the author of an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.
Featuring:

Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2745cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-collinJustice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch joined the opinion as to all but Part III–C, Justices Kagan and Breyer joined as to all but Part III–B, and Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts I, II, and III–C. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined as to Part II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined.
Featuring:

Jason Levine, Partner, Alston & Bird
Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45617232Wed, 07 Jul 2021 18:49:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 23, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court in Collins v. Yellen held 7-2 that 1) because the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not exceed its authority under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the anti-injunction provisions of the Recovery...Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch joined the opinion as to all but Part III–C, Justices Kagan and Breyer joined as to all but Part III–B, and Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts I, II, and III–C. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined as to Part II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined.
Featuring:

Jason Levine, Partner, Alston & Bird
Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2645cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-crisis-of-the-two-con
Crisis of the Two Constitutions details how we got to and what is at stake in our increasingly divided America. It takes controversial stands on matters political and scholarly, describing the political genius of America’s founders and their efforts to shape future generations through a constitutional culture that included immigration, citizenship, and educational policies. Then it turns to the attempted progressive refounding of America, tracing its accelerating radicalism from the New Deal to the 1960s’ New Left to today’s unhappy campus nihilists. Finally, the volume appraises American conservatives’ efforts, so far unavailing despite many famous victories, to revive the founders’ Constitution and moral common sense. From Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, what have conservatives learned and where should they go from here?

Along the way, Charles R. Kesler argues with critics on the left and right, and refutes fashionable doctrines including relativism, multiculturalism, critical race theory, and radical traditionalism, providing in effect a one-volume guide to the increasingly influential Claremont school of conservative thought by one of its most engaged, and engaging, thinkers.

Featuring:

-- Prof. Charles R. Kesler, Author, Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness, Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute

-- Moderator: Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, Univeristy of Notre Dame Law School

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45603392Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:27:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmerican politics grows embittered because it is increasingly torn between two rival constitutions, two opposed cultures, two contrary ways of life. American conservatives rally around the founders’ Constitution, as amended and as grounded in the...
Crisis of the Two Constitutions details how we got to and what is at stake in our increasingly divided America. It takes controversial stands on matters political and scholarly, describing the political genius of America’s founders and their efforts to shape future generations through a constitutional culture that included immigration, citizenship, and educational policies. Then it turns to the attempted progressive refounding of America, tracing its accelerating radicalism from the New Deal to the 1960s’ New Left to today’s unhappy campus nihilists. Finally, the volume appraises American conservatives’ efforts, so far unavailing despite many famous victories, to revive the founders’ Constitution and moral common sense. From Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, what have conservatives learned and where should they go from here?

Along the way, Charles R. Kesler argues with critics on the left and right, and refutes fashionable doctrines including relativism, multiculturalism, critical race theory, and radical traditionalism, providing in effect a one-volume guide to the increasingly influential Claremont school of conservative thought by one of its most engaged, and engaging, thinkers.

Featuring:

-- Prof. Charles R. Kesler, Author, Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness, Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute

-- Moderator: Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, Univeristy of Notre Dame Law School

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3817cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-goldmaIn this case, a group of Goldman shareholders sought to certify a class action suit against Goldman arguing that they had detrimentally relied on Goldman’s alleged misrepresentations about conflict management, which had resulted in inflation maintenance and subsequent shareholder loss. In arguing for class certification, the plaintiffs relied on the Supreme Court’s 1988 Basic Inc. v. Levinson decision allowing plaintiffs to prove reliance based on evidence common to the class. Goldman argued against certification and against the Basic presumption by presenting evidence showing the alleged misrepresentations had not affected stock prices.
On its second attempt, the District Court certified a class and the Second Circuit affirmed. In its decision, the Supreme Court remanded to the Second Circuit to consider the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations even though that evidence might get to materiality not usually considered at the initial certification stage under Rule 23. The Court also clarified the Basic presumption holding that a defendant does bear the burden of persuasion to rebut the presumption of reliance allowed to class action plaintiffs.
Featuring:

Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45600086Tue, 06 Jul 2021 17:19:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court issued its decision in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System on June 21, 2021. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh...In this case, a group of Goldman shareholders sought to certify a class action suit against Goldman arguing that they had detrimentally relied on Goldman’s alleged misrepresentations about conflict management, which had resulted in inflation maintenance and subsequent shareholder loss. In arguing for class certification, the plaintiffs relied on the Supreme Court’s 1988 Basic Inc. v. Levinson decision allowing plaintiffs to prove reliance based on evidence common to the class. Goldman argued against certification and against the Basic presumption by presenting evidence showing the alleged misrepresentations had not affected stock prices.
On its second attempt, the District Court certified a class and the Second Circuit affirmed. In its decision, the Supreme Court remanded to the Second Circuit to consider the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations even though that evidence might get to materiality not usually considered at the initial certification stage under Rule 23. The Court also clarified the Basic presumption holding that a defendant does bear the burden of persuasion to rebut the presumption of reliance allowed to class action plaintiffs.
Featuring:

Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>1783cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-ncaa-vFeaturing:

Michael Murray, Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45530289Thu, 01 Jul 2021 17:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously decided NCAA v. Alston in favor of respondent. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch explained that the district court's injunction on NCAA rules limiting the benefits schools can make available to...Featuring:

Michael Murray, Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2314cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-vaccines-and-intellectual-prope
In a move that surprised many, on May 5, 2021, United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai issued a statement announcing the current administration’s support for this waiver, but initially for vaccines only rather than the additional COVID-19 health technologies covered by the waiver proposal. In Tai’s announcement, she stated that “The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines.” The purpose of the waiver, as Tai noted, was to “get as many safe and effective vaccines to as many people, as fast as possible.”

Since Representative Tai’s statement, there has been much commentary in favor and against the waiver and the US support for it, but after the most recent TRIPS Council meeting, text-based negotiations have begun on the India/South Africa proposal and a European Union communication emphasizing elimination of trade barriers, voluntary agreements, and clarifications of the TRIPS Agreement’s compulsory licensing rules. In this webinar, experts in intellectual property and international trade helped to explain the pros and cons of the waiver proposal, what effects it may have on the pandemic, and what other impacts the waiver may have long term.

Featuring:

-- Jorge Contreras, Professor of Law, University of Utah College of Law

-- James Bacchus, Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs and Director, Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity, University of Central Florida

-- Ana Santos Rutschman, Assistant Professor, Saint Louis University School of Law

-- Brook K. Baker, Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law

-- Moderator: Steven M. Tepp, President and CEO, Sentinel Worldwide

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45530064Thu, 01 Jul 2021 17:51:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn October 2020, two countries, India and South Africa, that had been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 virus and its variants and by inadequate supply of personal protective equipment, diagnostic tests, and medicines, requested a waiver of...
In a move that surprised many, on May 5, 2021, United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai issued a statement announcing the current administration’s support for this waiver, but initially for vaccines only rather than the additional COVID-19 health technologies covered by the waiver proposal. In Tai’s announcement, she stated that “The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines.” The purpose of the waiver, as Tai noted, was to “get as many safe and effective vaccines to as many people, as fast as possible.”

Since Representative Tai’s statement, there has been much commentary in favor and against the waiver and the US support for it, but after the most recent TRIPS Council meeting, text-based negotiations have begun on the India/South Africa proposal and a European Union communication emphasizing elimination of trade barriers, voluntary agreements, and clarifications of the TRIPS Agreement’s compulsory licensing rules. In this webinar, experts in intellectual property and international trade helped to explain the pros and cons of the waiver proposal, what effects it may have on the pandemic, and what other impacts the waiver may have long term.

Featuring:

-- Jorge Contreras, Professor of Law, University of Utah College of Law

-- James Bacchus, Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs and Director, Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity, University of Central Florida

-- Ana Santos Rutschman, Assistant Professor, Saint Louis University School of Law

-- Brook K. Baker, Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law

-- Moderator: Steven M. Tepp, President and CEO, Sentinel Worldwide

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3704cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-holly-
In this case, the exemptions granted to several small refineries had lapsed. When they reapplied and received exemptions, biofuels interests sued. They argued that, because these refineries' exemptions had lapsed, they were no longer eligible under the terms of the statute, which provides that small refineries can apply for “an extension of the exemption [for] . . . disproportionate economic hardship.”

The Tenth Circuit interpreted the statutory language to bar an exemption grant based on the lapse—granting an exemption after a lapse would not be an “extension.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “extension” as used in this statute does not require “unbroken continuity” and determining that the statutory language’s context indicated Congressional intent to allow small refineries to apply for an exemption even if they hadn't continuously received one before.

Justin Schwab, former EPA Deputy General Counsel and founder of CGCN Law, previewed the case for us on April 27, 2021. He joins us again to discuss the opinion.

Featuring:

-- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45516361Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:42:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 25, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Holly Frontier Cheyenne Refining LLC. v. Renewable Fuels Association. This case turned on the interpretation of the statutory term “extension” contained in the Renewable Fuel Program. In an effort...
In this case, the exemptions granted to several small refineries had lapsed. When they reapplied and received exemptions, biofuels interests sued. They argued that, because these refineries' exemptions had lapsed, they were no longer eligible under the terms of the statute, which provides that small refineries can apply for “an extension of the exemption [for] . . . disproportionate economic hardship.”

The Tenth Circuit interpreted the statutory language to bar an exemption grant based on the lapse—granting an exemption after a lapse would not be an “extension.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “extension” as used in this statute does not require “unbroken continuity” and determining that the statutory language’s context indicated Congressional intent to allow small refineries to apply for an exemption even if they hadn't continuously received one before.

Justin Schwab, former EPA Deputy General Counsel and founder of CGCN Law, previewed the case for us on April 27, 2021. He joins us again to discuss the opinion.

Featuring:

-- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC]]>2777cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/navigating-high-profile-defamationFeaturing:

Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLP
Moderator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45515624Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:02:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe rise in cancel culture aided by online activity—and more recently by the national press—can result in significant harm to an individual’s or a company’s reputation. Speaking out on nearly any topic on an online platform has...Featuring:

Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLP
Moderator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3586cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/current-status-of-police-reform-legislat
Featuring:

-- Zack Smith, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45515186Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:27:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the past year, police reform has become a priority for many at both the state and federal levels. In this teleforum, Zack Smith at The Heritage Foundation will recap some of the recent efforts to pass police reform legislation at the state and...
Featuring:

-- Zack Smith, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation]]>3289cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-yellenUnder this definition, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) qualified for CARES Act Covid-19 relief. Several other Indian tribes sued, arguing that the money should be reserved for federally recognized tribes.
The District Court entered summary judgment for the ANCs and the Department of the Treasury, the DC Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court ultimately held that the ANCs do qualify for COVID-19 relief under the CARES Act.
Featuring:

Anthony "AJ" Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45514685Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:58:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court issued its decision in Yellen, Secretary of Treasury v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation on June 25, 2021. In this case, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act allotted 8 million dollars to...Under this definition, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) qualified for CARES Act Covid-19 relief. Several other Indian tribes sued, arguing that the money should be reserved for federally recognized tribes.
The District Court entered summary judgment for the ANCs and the Department of the Treasury, the DC Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court ultimately held that the ANCs do qualify for COVID-19 relief under the CARES Act.
Featuring:

Anthony "AJ" Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2551cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-unsettling-climate-sc
Featuring:

-- Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Author, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn't, and Why it Matters; Professor, New York University

-- Moderator: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Adjunct Professor, George Washington University

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45514265Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:50:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPopular and political discussions of the climate invariably invoke “The Science” as settled. But a careful reading of the research, literature, and government assessment reports shows a different picture. In this Federalist Society book event, Dr....
Featuring:

-- Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Author, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn't, and Why it Matters; Professor, New York University

-- Moderator: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Adjunct Professor, George Washington University

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3594cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/what-happened-with-the-texas-energy-grid
Featuring:

-- Barry Smitherman, principle of BARRY SMITHERMAN, P.C. and a former partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP. He served on the Texas Railroad Commission from 2011 through 2014, and was Chairman of the Commission from March 2012 through August 2014.

-- Raymond L. Gifford, who counsels communications, electric and gas utilities, and information technology companies on state and federal aspects of regulation, administrative law, and competition policy. He is an expert in public utilities law, and the law and economics of regulation of network industries.

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45513523Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:19:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen the Texas electric grid failed over Valentine’s Day weekend in February 2021, the recriminations were plentiful and contradictory: too many renewables that failed; too much natural gas-fired generation that didn’t show up; a flawed regulatory...
Featuring:

-- Barry Smitherman, principle of BARRY SMITHERMAN, P.C. and a former partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP. He served on the Texas Railroad Commission from 2011 through 2014, and was Chairman of the Commission from March 2012 through August 2014.

-- Raymond L. Gifford, who counsels communications, electric and gas utilities, and information technology companies on state and federal aspects of regulation, administrative law, and competition policy. He is an expert in public utilities law, and the law and economics of regulation of network industries.

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3546cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/limiting-the-right-to-exclude-common-carWhile there is historical precedent for regulating communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers, are social media platforms best understood as communications networks that “carry” information from one user to another? Or have they created a business model built more on “curated” speech that to some degree reflects their own expressive interest in acceptable debate and discussion? And how should we think about possible state regulatory efforts to regulate private companies in this way?
Featuring:

Adam Candeub, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder, International Center for Law and Economics
Olivier Sylvain, Professor of Law, Fordham University
Charles M. Miller, Deputy Chief Counsel, Ohio Attorney General's Office
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45512151Wed, 30 Jun 2021 16:38:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe recent concurrence by Justice Thomas in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute has raised new questions about how we might think about restrictions on speech and debate on social media. Where private, concentrated control over online content...While there is historical precedent for regulating communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers, are social media platforms best understood as communications networks that “carry” information from one user to another? Or have they created a business model built more on “curated” speech that to some degree reflects their own expressive interest in acceptable debate and discussion? And how should we think about possible state regulatory efforts to regulate private companies in this way?
Featuring:

Adam Candeub, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder, International Center for Law and Economics
Olivier Sylvain, Professor of Law, Fordham University
Charles M. Miller, Deputy Chief Counsel, Ohio Attorney General's Office
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>4651cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-mahanoFeaturing:

Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45498319Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:53:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a high-school student, was disciplined for posting on Snapchat a vulgar message that was critical of the school's cheerleading team. By an 8-1 vote, the Court held that...Featuring:

Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2557cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/title-ix-a-discussion
Featuring:
-- Samantha Harris, Attorney, Allen Harris Law

-- Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivors and Senior Counsel, National Women's Law Center

-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45498278Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:49:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 11, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden issued an Executive Order titled “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex….” President Biden’s Order requires the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil...
Featuring:
-- Samantha Harris, Attorney, Allen Harris Law

-- Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivors and Senior Counsel, National Women's Law Center

-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3443cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-cle-webinar-some-recent-and-ongoing-de
* The American Bar Association adopted Model Rule 8.4(g) in August 2016 to provide enforceable regulations against discrimination and harassment by lawyers on the basis of sex, race, and several other characteristics. But the Rule has proven to be controversial, and even five years later the controversy seems to be increasing rather than fading from view.

* Wide adoption of computer-based and online technology has dramatically affected the practice of law, beginning well before the dawn of this century. Ramifications for legal ethics include responding to online criticism by clients or opposing parties, working remotely outside the state of licensure, preventing and dealing with data breaches involving confidential client information, maintaining competency to practice law beyond knowledge of legal doctrine and familiarity with procedural requirements, using artificial intelligence to conduct judge-specific legal research, and avoiding ex parte or other improper communications through interactions on social media.

* Model Rule 1.2(d) and its predecessors have always prohibited lawyers from knowingly assisting clients in carrying out fraudulent or criminal schemes. But how does a lawyer know when a client is up to no good? In suspicious circumstances, is there an unavoidable tension among client loyalty, client service, self-protection., and good citizenship? An uncomfortable "client audit" can become necessary, in litigation and non-litigation matters.

Featuring:

-- William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law Firm

-- Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45495059Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:42:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this CLE Webinar, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals and Professor Emeritus of Law William Hodes will discuss the following three areas of lawyer professional responsibility. * The American Bar Association adopted Model Rule...
* The American Bar Association adopted Model Rule 8.4(g) in August 2016 to provide enforceable regulations against discrimination and harassment by lawyers on the basis of sex, race, and several other characteristics. But the Rule has proven to be controversial, and even five years later the controversy seems to be increasing rather than fading from view.

* Wide adoption of computer-based and online technology has dramatically affected the practice of law, beginning well before the dawn of this century. Ramifications for legal ethics include responding to online criticism by clients or opposing parties, working remotely outside the state of licensure, preventing and dealing with data breaches involving confidential client information, maintaining competency to practice law beyond knowledge of legal doctrine and familiarity with procedural requirements, using artificial intelligence to conduct judge-specific legal research, and avoiding ex parte or other improper communications through interactions on social media.

* Model Rule 1.2(d) and its predecessors have always prohibited lawyers from knowingly assisting clients in carrying out fraudulent or criminal schemes. But how does a lawyer know when a client is up to no good? In suspicious circumstances, is there an unavoidable tension among client loyalty, client service, self-protection., and good citizenship? An uncomfortable "client audit" can become necessary, in litigation and non-litigation matters.

Featuring:

-- William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law Firm

-- Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3577cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-lange-The Court held that the hot pursuit exigency exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is not a categorical exception where a police officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed a misdemeanor. The 1976 decision in United States v. Santana cited by amici does not create a categorical flight exception. Instead, determining whether hot pursuit of a misdemeanant allows for a warrantless entry requires case by case analysis.
Featuring:



Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute



* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45494690Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:13:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court issued its decision in Lange v. California on June 23, 2021. Lange was pulled over by a California policeman for misdemeanor driving violations. Instead of stopping when the police officer initiated the stop, Lange drove home and...The Court held that the hot pursuit exigency exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is not a categorical exception where a police officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed a misdemeanor. The 1976 decision in United States v. Santana cited by amici does not create a categorical flight exception. Instead, determining whether hot pursuit of a misdemeanant allows for a warrantless entry requires case by case analysis.
Featuring:



Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute



* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3406cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/recent-evolution-or-revolution-in-federa
Featuring:

-- Stephen Baird, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig LLP

-- Antoinette Tease, Founder, Antoinette M. Tease PLLC

-- Moderator: Andrew Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45494602Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent rulings from the United States Supreme Court and regional circuit courts have shed new light on what have long been understood to be settled—if not always clear—principles in arenas such as protectability of product configurations, colors and...
Featuring:

-- Stephen Baird, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig LLP

-- Antoinette Tease, Founder, Antoinette M. Tease PLLC

-- Moderator: Andrew Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3409cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-cedaFeaturing:
Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
---
Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45494525Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:57:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court issued its decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid today, June 23, 2021, holding 6-3 that a California regulation allowing California union organizers entry onto the private property of California growers constituted an...Featuring:
Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
---
Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>1420cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-unitedJustices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Parts I and II of the opinion, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Part III of the opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to Parts I and II.
Featuring:

Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45431996Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 21, 2021, the US Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts explained that the patent judge's unreviewable authority is incompatible with his appointment as an inferior officer....Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Parts I and II of the opinion, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Part III of the opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to Parts I and II.
Featuring:

Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3491cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-califoTwo experts join us to discuss the ruling and offer their differing views on the important constitutional issues involved, including standing and severability.
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
---
This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45431050Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:14:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided California v. Texas. Writing for the 7-2 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer explained that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's minimum essential coverage provision. Justice...Two experts join us to discuss the ruling and offer their differing views on the important constitutional issues involved, including standing and severability.
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
---
This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.]]>3504cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/mcgirt-one-year-laterThe webinar explorde some of the litigation that has arisen after the ruling in McGirt, discussions between the state and the nations, and congressional discussions that have occurred in the past year.
Featuring:

Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
Ryan Leonard, Special Counsel for Native American Affairs to Gov. Stitt
Moderator: Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45430892Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:02:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs the 2020 term concluded, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Muskogee Creek Reservation in Oklahoma was never disestablished by Congress. This has led to Oklahoma courts declaring that reservations for the Chickasaw, Cherokee,...The webinar explorde some of the litigation that has arisen after the ruling in McGirt, discussions between the state and the nations, and congressional discussions that have occurred in the past year.
Featuring:

Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
Ryan Leonard, Special Counsel for Native American Affairs to Gov. Stitt
Moderator: Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3554cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/china-policy-and-the-pacific-trade-pact
Featuring:
-- Dr. Michael R. Auslin, Payson J. Treat Distinguished Research Fellow in Contemporary Asia, Hoover Institution
-- Jeffrey Gerrish, Partner, CFIUS and Foreign Investment Reviews; National Security; International Trade, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
-- Nova J. Daly, Senior Public Policy Advisor, Wiley Rein LLP
-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45430793Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:54:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPresident Trump declined to join the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership but many of China’s neighbors (with others) joined that trade agreement. Would U.S. accession now encourage Asian nations to resist Chinese expansionism? Can the agreement be...
Featuring:
-- Dr. Michael R. Auslin, Payson J. Treat Distinguished Research Fellow in Contemporary Asia, Hoover Institution
-- Jeffrey Gerrish, Partner, CFIUS and Foreign Investment Reviews; National Security; International Trade, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
-- Nova J. Daly, Senior Public Policy Advisor, Wiley Rein LLP
-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3675cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-sancJose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States illegally in 1997. Four years later, he applied for and was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) then in 2014, Sanchez applied for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Sanchez’ LPR application, finding him ineligible based on his illegal entry—so Sanchez sued in District Court. The court sided with Sanchez, holding that the grant of TPS automatically made Sanchez eligible for LPR consideration.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding Sanchez ineligible for LPR, based on his illegal entry, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found that eligibility for LPR status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 requires “admission” defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” As a result, Sanchez’ illegal entry made him ineligible for LPR.
Featuring:

Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, retired United States Ambassador to East Timor, General Counsel of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1991 through 1993



* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45430694Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas on June 7, 2021. Jose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States illegally in 1997. Four years later, he applied for and was granted Temporary...Jose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States illegally in 1997. Four years later, he applied for and was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) then in 2014, Sanchez applied for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Sanchez’ LPR application, finding him ineligible based on his illegal entry—so Sanchez sued in District Court. The court sided with Sanchez, holding that the grant of TPS automatically made Sanchez eligible for LPR consideration.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding Sanchez ineligible for LPR, based on his illegal entry, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found that eligibility for LPR status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 requires “admission” defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” As a result, Sanchez’ illegal entry made him ineligible for LPR.
Featuring:

Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, retired United States Ambassador to East Timor, General Counsel of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1991 through 1993



* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>1996cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-what-are-the-extent-a
The most recent book, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution by Prof. McConnell, was reviewed in the pages of the Federalist Society Review by John Yoo. Before that, Profs. Prakash and Yoo joined the Federalist Society's Teleforum to debate the Constitution's grant of presidential power and whether (or to what extent) President Trump upheld that grant. The discussion continues with the new voice of former federal judge and distinguished originalist scholar Michael McConnell.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
-- Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
-- Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45401046Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:34:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThree of the nation's leading scholars on constitutional law and executive power — Michael McConnell, Sai Prakash, and John Yoo — join us to discuss the true extent of executive power, and their new books on the subject. The most recent book, The...
The most recent book, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution by Prof. McConnell, was reviewed in the pages of the Federalist Society Review by John Yoo. Before that, Profs. Prakash and Yoo joined the Federalist Society's Teleforum to debate the Constitution's grant of presidential power and whether (or to what extent) President Trump upheld that grant. The discussion continues with the new voice of former federal judge and distinguished originalist scholar Michael McConnell.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
-- Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
-- Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>3896cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-fultonJustice Barrett filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Kavanaugh joined and Justice Breyer joined as to all but the first paragraph. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45400943Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:26:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 17, 2021, the US Supreme Court unanimously decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for petitioners. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court in an opinion joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, explained...Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Kavanaugh joined and Justice Breyer joined as to all but the first paragraph. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3383cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/china-the-u-s-and-global-climate-policy-Featuring:

Gabriel Collins, Baker Botts Fellow in Energy & Environmental Regulatory Affairs, Center for Energy Studies, Baker Institute
Moderator: Dan West, Executive Committee, International and National Security Law Practice Group

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45390078Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:48:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Biden Administration recently made headlines by announcing a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for the U.S. of 50% by 2030 (relative to 2005 levels) when hosting a climate summit with world leaders. Indeed, in an executive order (Jan. 27,...Featuring:

Gabriel Collins, Baker Botts Fellow in Energy & Environmental Regulatory Affairs, Center for Energy Studies, Baker Institute
Moderator: Dan West, Executive Committee, International and National Security Law Practice Group

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2702cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-terr
Featuring:
Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45389126Mon, 21 Jun 2021 19:08:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 14, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Terry v. United States. Petitioner Tarahrick Terry plead guilty to possession of crack cocaine in 2008. Following the passage of the First Step Act in 2018, petitioner requested...
Featuring:
Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1901cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-religious-liberty-in-
In his new book Religious Liberty in Crisis: Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty, former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr explores the contemporary relationship between government, constitutional law, and religious freedom. Judge Starr is joined by Professor Robert P. George, Princeton's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, to discuss the book and related matters.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Kenneth W. Starr, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (1983-1989); U.S. Solicitor General (1989-1993)
-- Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence; Director, James Madison Program, Princeton University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45389004Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:58:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 16, 2021, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "Talks with Authors: Religious Liberty in Crisis." In his new book Religious Liberty in Crisis: Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty,...
In his new book Religious Liberty in Crisis: Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty, former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr explores the contemporary relationship between government, constitutional law, and religious freedom. Judge Starr is joined by Professor Robert P. George, Princeton's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, to discuss the book and related matters.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Kenneth W. Starr, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (1983-1989); U.S. Solicitor General (1989-1993)
-- Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence; Director, James Madison Program, Princeton University]]>3818cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/certiorari-and-stinson-deferenceThe U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled a retreat from deference to agency guidance in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Court narrowed judicial deference available to agencies construing their own ambiguous regulations.
But what about judicial deference to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency housed in “within the Judicial Branch,” and which Justice Scalia derided as a “junior varsity Congress,” making policy choices that should be committed to the legislature? In Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to the commentary the Sentencing Commission issued construing their formally adopted Sentencing Guidelines, unless they are “inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of,” the relevant Guideline. The Stinson Court required such deference even if the Commission’s interpretation “may not be compelled by the guideline text.”
On June 17, the Supreme Court’s conference is slated to include discussion on a series of cases percolating up from the courts of appeals that all raise similar challenges to the use of Stinson deference in deciding criminal defendants’ sentences. The Court seems poised to grant certiorari to one or more of these cases challenging deference in order to resolve a broad and deep split among the circuits that reflects inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide. Or, at least, it would explain why the court has been holding some of these cert petitions for over six months in order to consider all of them together—perhaps in order to select the best vehicle from among the slew of petitions clamoring for the Court’s consideration.
Here to discuss the pending Stinson deference cert petitions is appellate attorney John Elwood, a partner at Arnold & Porter who is better known in some circles as the relist guru on SCOTUSblog. John filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of Zimmian Tabb in a case out of the Second Circuit—one of the first Stinson deference cases to reach the Supreme Court last fall. John will explain what’s at stake in the reconsideration of Stinson deference, including the following questions: Do constitutional due process and the rule of lenity preclude Stinson deference when commentary to a Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence? Do courts owe deference to Guidelines commentary that appears to expand the scope of the Sentencing Guidelines? Post-Kisor, may courts defer to commentary without first determining whether the pertinent Guideline is ambiguous? Post-Kisor, must courts apply canons of construction like the rule of lenity before granting the agency deference? And, practically speaking, what might the Supreme Court be looking for to select the best vehicle for reconsideration of Stinson deference from among the pending cert petitions? Moderating the discussion will be New Civil Liberties Alliance Executive Director and General Counsel, Mark Chenoweth. NCLA authored another of the cert petitions pending before this week’s conference at the Court on behalf of a defendant in the Eighth Circuit, Marcus Broadway.
Featuring:

John P. Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter
Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45388838Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:46:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 16, 2021, The Federalist Society's Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted a teleforum on "Certiorari and Stinson Deference." The U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled a retreat from deference to agency guidance in Kisor v....The U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled a retreat from deference to agency guidance in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Court narrowed judicial deference available to agencies construing their own ambiguous regulations.
But what about judicial deference to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency housed in “within the Judicial Branch,” and which Justice Scalia derided as a “junior varsity Congress,” making policy choices that should be committed to the legislature? In Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to the commentary the Sentencing Commission issued construing their formally adopted Sentencing Guidelines, unless they are “inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of,” the relevant Guideline. The Stinson Court required such deference even if the Commission’s interpretation “may not be compelled by the guideline text.”
On June 17, the Supreme Court’s conference is slated to include discussion on a series of cases percolating up from the courts of appeals that all raise similar challenges to the use of Stinson deference in deciding criminal defendants’ sentences. The Court seems poised to grant certiorari to one or more of these cases challenging deference in order to resolve a broad and deep split among the circuits that reflects inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide. Or, at least, it would explain why the court has been holding some of these cert petitions for over six months in order to consider all of them together—perhaps in order to select the best vehicle from among the slew of petitions clamoring for the Court’s consideration.
Here to discuss the pending Stinson deference cert petitions is appellate attorney John Elwood, a partner at Arnold & Porter who is better known in some circles as the relist guru on SCOTUSblog. John filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of Zimmian Tabb in a case out of the Second Circuit—one of the first Stinson deference cases to reach the Supreme Court last fall. John will explain what’s at stake in the reconsideration of Stinson deference, including the following questions: Do constitutional due process and the rule of lenity preclude Stinson deference when commentary to a Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence? Do courts owe deference to Guidelines commentary that appears to expand the scope of the Sentencing Guidelines? Post-Kisor, may courts defer to commentary without first determining whether the pertinent Guideline is ambiguous? Post-Kisor, must courts apply canons of construction like the rule of lenity before granting the agency deference? And, practically speaking, what might the Supreme Court be looking for to select the best vehicle for reconsideration of Stinson deference from among the pending cert petitions? Moderating the discussion will be New Civil Liberties Alliance Executive Director and General Counsel, Mark Chenoweth. NCLA authored another of the cert petitions pending before this week’s conference at the Court on behalf of a defendant in the Eighth Circuit, Marcus Broadway.
Featuring:

John P. Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter
Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3555cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/department-of-justice-executive-supervis
With the change in presidential administration, some critics and scholars have argued that a need for independence at agencies like the Department of Justice should be reconsidered. To whom is the Department of Justice accountable? Whose interests does it represent?

When a change in executive leadership occurs, should the policies at agencies like DOJ be subject to change as well? And, if so, how far does that latitude extend—to prosecutorial policies, to enforcement discretion, to the questions of constitutional and statutory and criminal law interpretation delegated for resolution to DOJ? This distinguished panel discussion will address these issues and the core question of which governmental actors our constitutional system has charged with directing the arc of the use of that authority.

Featuring:
-- Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence, New York University Law School; former White House Counsel
-- Steven Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP; former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Jamie Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale; former Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Hon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton; 81st Attorney General of the United States
-- Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45388747Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 17, 2021, The Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a teleforum exploring the "Department of Justice: Executive Supervision or Independence?". With the change in presidential administration, some critics...
With the change in presidential administration, some critics and scholars have argued that a need for independence at agencies like the Department of Justice should be reconsidered. To whom is the Department of Justice accountable? Whose interests does it represent?

When a change in executive leadership occurs, should the policies at agencies like DOJ be subject to change as well? And, if so, how far does that latitude extend—to prosecutorial policies, to enforcement discretion, to the questions of constitutional and statutory and criminal law interpretation delegated for resolution to DOJ? This distinguished panel discussion will address these issues and the core question of which governmental actors our constitutional system has charged with directing the arc of the use of that authority.

Featuring:
-- Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence, New York University Law School; former White House Counsel
-- Steven Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP; former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Jamie Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale; former Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Hon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton; 81st Attorney General of the United States
-- Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]]>5469cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ofccp-in-the-biden-administration
Featuring:
-- Lauren B. Hicks, Of Counsel, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45359312Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:28:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis session will cover changes – both observed to-date and anticipated – by OFCCP in the Biden administration. We will discuss the early initiatives the Biden administration has introduced, including a webpage for the Affirmative Action Verification...
Featuring:
-- Lauren B. Hicks, Of Counsel, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.]]>2281cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-bordFeaturing:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
---
Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45346614Thu, 17 Jun 2021 21:32:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyCharles Borden had been convicted three times of aggravated assault under Tennessee law. Federal law prohibits possession of firearms by convicted felons, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for...Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
---
Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>859cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/textual-challenges-of-section-230Featuring:

Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; President, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45346550Thu, 17 Jun 2021 21:27:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis panel addressed the textual questions of §230: is the statute correctly understood to permit discretionary content moderation on the part of social media platforms and other supporting tech entities, or does the text provide for a more...Featuring:

Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; President, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3878cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/closing-the-digital-divide-the-future-of
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed attention to closing the country’s digital divide. In response, Congress and the White House have made broadband infrastructure a top priority, with several different infrastructure proposals on the table. This massive investment to connect all Americans will require significant funding. This event, featuring FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, will explore the different options available, potential roadblocks, and the continued importance of unleashing private sector investment in today’s broadband networks.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
-- Moderator: Randolph J. May, President, Free State Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45343439Thu, 17 Jun 2021 17:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group sponsored a teleforum to discuss "Closing the Digital Divide: The Future of Broadband Access." The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed attention to...
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed attention to closing the country’s digital divide. In response, Congress and the White House have made broadband infrastructure a top priority, with several different infrastructure proposals on the table. This massive investment to connect all Americans will require significant funding. This event, featuring FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, will explore the different options available, potential roadblocks, and the continued importance of unleashing private sector investment in today’s broadband networks.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
-- Moderator: Randolph J. May, President, Free State Foundation]]>3479cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/free-speech-and-compelled-speech-first-aBut policy makers have recently taken a stronger interest in attempting to influence tech companies’ moderation policies. Some have argued the policies are too restrictive and unduly limit the scope of legitimate public debate in what has become something of a high-tech public square. Other policy makers have argued the platforms need to more aggressively target “hate speech,” online harassment, and other forms of objectionable content. And against that background, states are adopting and considering legislation to limit the scope of permissible content moderation to preclude viewpoint discrimination.
Some have suggested that the §230 protection, in combination with political pressure, create First Amendment state action problems for content moderation. Others argue that state efforts to protect the expressive interests of social media users would raise First Amendment concerns, by effectively compelling speech by social media and tech platforms.
What are the First Amendment limits on federal and state efforts to influence platform decisions on excluding or moderating content?
Featuring:

Eugene T. Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Jed Rubenfeld, formerly Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Representative at the Council of Europe, and professor at the Yale Law School
Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45314003Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:41:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySection 230 has been understood to shield internet platforms from liability for content posted by users, and also to protect the platforms’ discretion in removing “objectionable” content. But policy makers have recently taken a...But policy makers have recently taken a stronger interest in attempting to influence tech companies’ moderation policies. Some have argued the policies are too restrictive and unduly limit the scope of legitimate public debate in what has become something of a high-tech public square. Other policy makers have argued the platforms need to more aggressively target “hate speech,” online harassment, and other forms of objectionable content. And against that background, states are adopting and considering legislation to limit the scope of permissible content moderation to preclude viewpoint discrimination.
Some have suggested that the §230 protection, in combination with political pressure, create First Amendment state action problems for content moderation. Others argue that state efforts to protect the expressive interests of social media users would raise First Amendment concerns, by effectively compelling speech by social media and tech platforms.
What are the First Amendment limits on federal and state efforts to influence platform decisions on excluding or moderating content?
Featuring:

Eugene T. Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Jed Rubenfeld, formerly Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Representative at the Council of Europe, and professor at the Yale Law School
Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>4560cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-vitolo-v-guzman
Joining us to discuss is Mr. Daniel Lennington, the attorney who represented Mr. Vitolo before the Sixth Circuit.

Featuring:
-- Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45297213Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:58:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 27, 2021, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Vitolo v. Guzman. Over a dissent written by Judge Donald, the Court held that the Small Business Act of the American Rescue Plan Act created unconstitutional racial, ethnic, and gender-based...
Joining us to discuss is Mr. Daniel Lennington, the attorney who represented Mr. Vitolo before the Sixth Circuit.

Featuring:
-- Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty]]>2667cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-van-buFormer Assistant U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District Joseph DeMarco joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.
Featuring:

Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeMarco Law PLLC

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45261920Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:47:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. United States. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that an individual exceeds authorized access when he accesses a computer with authorization but obtains information in...Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District Joseph DeMarco joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.
Featuring:

Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeMarco Law PLLC

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2089cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-lockdowns-at-the-border
Featuring:
-- Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
-- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45236682Wed, 09 Jun 2021 20:32:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will examine the president's use of travel bans during the SARS-2 pandemic Two of the nation's top experts in immigration law--Professor Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and Chris Hajec of the...
Featuring:
-- Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
-- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>2805cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-unit_3
Joining us to discuss are Indian Law experts AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle.
Featuring:
Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45201540Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:24:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Breyer that could have far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Cooley that a tribal police officer does have authority to temporarily detain a non-Indian where the officer has probable...
Joining us to discuss are Indian Law experts AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle.
Featuring:
Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
---
To register, click the link above.]]>2729cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-san-
Joining us to discuss is Associate Professor of Law and Interim Dean Charles Campbell of Faulkner University Jones School of Law.

Featuring:
-- Charles Campbell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45152552Thu, 03 Jun 2021 16:02:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 27, the Supreme Court issued its 9-0 decision in San Antonio, TX v. Hotels.com holding that district courts lack the discretion to deny or reduce Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 appellate costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for...
Joining us to discuss is Associate Professor of Law and Interim Dean Charles Campbell of Faulkner University Jones School of Law.

Featuring:
-- Charles Campbell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law]]>1954cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/talks-with-authors-administrative-law-th
Featuring:
-- Ilan Wurman, Author, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
-- Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45141252Wed, 02 Jun 2021 20:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFew fields are more in need of fresh thinking than administrative law. The author of Administrative Law Theory and Fundamentals: An Integrated Approach, a new casebook recently published by Foundation Press, seeks to provide such thinking. The new...
Featuring:
-- Ilan Wurman, Author, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
-- Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law]]>3586cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-equal-rights-amendment-then-and-nowSeveral states and the U.S. Congress are now revisiting the ERA, raising a variety of issues:

Whether it is constitutionally possible at this point to extend or eliminate the deadline for ratification of the 1972 ERA; the effectiveness (or not) of five states’ revocations of their votes to ratify; the effectiveness (or not) of the three states’ ratifications that came more than 35 years after the extended deadline;
The pros and cons and wisdom (or not) and necessity (or not) and ramifications of amending the United States Constitution with the ERA.

These and related matters will be discussed by Rep. Steven Andersson, founder of GOP4ERA.org, and Jennifer Braceras, Director of the Independent Women’s Law Center. Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor will moderate the discussion.
Featuring:

Rep. Steven Andersson, Founder, GOP4ERA.org
Jennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center
Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45136975Wed, 02 Jun 2021 15:07:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFirst proposed in 1923 – yes, nearly one hundred years ago - the Equal Rights Amendment was finally passed by the U.S. Congress nearly 50 years later, in 1972, with a seven-year deadline for its ratification. With the deadline approaching, but...Several states and the U.S. Congress are now revisiting the ERA, raising a variety of issues:

Whether it is constitutionally possible at this point to extend or eliminate the deadline for ratification of the 1972 ERA; the effectiveness (or not) of five states’ revocations of their votes to ratify; the effectiveness (or not) of the three states’ ratifications that came more than 35 years after the extended deadline;
The pros and cons and wisdom (or not) and necessity (or not) and ramifications of amending the United States Constitution with the ERA.

These and related matters will be discussed by Rep. Steven Andersson, founder of GOP4ERA.org, and Jennifer Braceras, Director of the Independent Women’s Law Center. Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor will moderate the discussion.
Featuring:

Rep. Steven Andersson, Founder, GOP4ERA.org
Jennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center
Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3410cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-meriwether-v-hartop
On the Speech claim: the Sixth Circuit found the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Cebalos did not apply to bar Meriwether’s claim since the Court had expressly withheld applying the precedent to “a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.”

On the Free Exercise claim: based on the hostility to religion demonstrated by Shawnee State officials, the Sixth Circuit found strict scrutiny under Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah rather than rational basis under Employment Division v. Smith applied, so Meriwether had successfully established a Free Exercise claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Joining us to discuss the implications of the decision for academic freedom, free speech and religious liberty is Mr. Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity.

Featuring:
-- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45127045Tue, 01 Jun 2021 20:57:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a decision issued on March 26, 2021, the Sixth Circuit held Professor Nicholas Meriwether, a long-time philosophy professor at Shawnee State and a devout Christian, had plausibly alleged Shawnee State violated his First Amendment Speech and Free...
On the Speech claim: the Sixth Circuit found the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Cebalos did not apply to bar Meriwether’s claim since the Court had expressly withheld applying the precedent to “a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.”

On the Free Exercise claim: based on the hostility to religion demonstrated by Shawnee State officials, the Sixth Circuit found strict scrutiny under Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah rather than rational basis under Employment Division v. Smith applied, so Meriwether had successfully established a Free Exercise claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Joining us to discuss the implications of the decision for academic freedom, free speech and religious liberty is Mr. Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity.

Featuring:
-- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity]]>3103cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/h-r-1-the-for-the-people-act-explained
The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.

The House passed the bill on a near party-line vote (1 Democrat voted "no"), and its fate now lies with the 50-50 divided Senate. Senate Republicans can block a vote with the filibuster, and H.R. 1 has been cited frequently as a reason to abolish the filibuster. But at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has stated that he will not vote for the bill in its current form, depriving the legislation--for now--of even a simple majority.

Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech and one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law will join us to discuss some of the more important provisions and implications of H.R.1/S. 1, the For the People Act.

Featuring:
-- Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45068706Thu, 27 May 2021 21:06:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe For the People Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019 as H.R. 1, the symbolic designation marking it as the top priority of the new Democratic House majority. Described by its author, Representative John Sarbanes, as...
The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.

The House passed the bill on a near party-line vote (1 Democrat voted "no"), and its fate now lies with the 50-50 divided Senate. Senate Republicans can block a vote with the filibuster, and H.R. 1 has been cited frequently as a reason to abolish the filibuster. But at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has stated that he will not vote for the bill in its current form, depriving the legislation--for now--of even a simple majority.

Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech and one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law will join us to discuss some of the more important provisions and implications of H.R.1/S. 1, the For the People Act.

Featuring:
-- Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech]]>3153cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-discussion-students-for-fair-admissionShould and will the Court take the case? Is this an opportunity for a long-overdue correction of judicial error or a project doomed to fail? And what exactly does the trove of information from the record below mean for the Court’s decision, for admissions departments elsewhere, and for applicants?
Featuring:

Anna Ivey, Founder, Anna Ivey Consulting
Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm
Moderator: Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45064992Thu, 27 May 2021 15:46:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, petitioning Asian-American students argued that Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies actively discriminated against them on the basis of race in violation of...Should and will the Court take the case? Is this an opportunity for a long-overdue correction of judicial error or a project doomed to fail? And what exactly does the trove of information from the record below mean for the Court’s decision, for admissions departments elsewhere, and for applicants?
Featuring:

Anna Ivey, Founder, Anna Ivey Consulting
Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm
Moderator: Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3612cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/infrastructure-broadband-and-the-new-admFeaturing:

Prof. Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Tony Clark, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
Kate O’Connor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Moderator: Hon. David Redl, Founder and CEO, Salt Point Strategies LLC and Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45035699Tue, 25 May 2021 21:22:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn March 2021, the Biden Administration unveiled its infrastructure plan, known as the American Jobs Act. An important part of the plan is technology, and a focus point is improving the nation's broadband network. A panel of experts joins us to...Featuring:

Prof. Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Tony Clark, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
Kate O’Connor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Moderator: Hon. David Redl, Founder and CEO, Salt Point Strategies LLC and Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3651cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-cic-seJoining us to discuss the decision and its implications are several experts in the field.
Featuring:

Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45035408Tue, 25 May 2021 21:12:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Services, a case involving the Anti-Injunction Act and tax penalties. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for the Court and Justices Sotomayor...Joining us to discuss the decision and its implications are several experts in the field.
Featuring:

Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3568cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-conversation-with-commissioner-brian-d
Featuring:
-- Hon. Brian D. Quintenz, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
-- Moderator: Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45029158Tue, 25 May 2021 16:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn March 2021, a futures exchange, ErisX, voluntarily withdrew an application with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC," the main derivatives regulator) to list a futures contract tied to events in NFL games such as point spread and total...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Brian D. Quintenz, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
-- Moderator: Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3611cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-edwaOn May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Edwards v. Vannoy, which focused on whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applied retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45011096Mon, 24 May 2021 20:39:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDue to technical difficulties, this teleforum has been rescheduled for Friday, May 21 at 1:30 PM ET. On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Edwards v. Vannoy, which focused on whether the Supreme Court’s...On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Edwards v. Vannoy, which focused on whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applied retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>799cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-bp-p
On May 17, 2021, The Supreme Court released its decision in one of the cases, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. By a vote of 7-1, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Sotomayor, who dissented, and Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Phil Goldberg and Karen Harned join us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45011025Mon, 24 May 2021 20:34:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyNearly two dozen lawsuits against energy manufacturers seeking state tort damages over climate change have been filed in state courts. The defendants removed the cases to federal courts because the subject matter of the litigation involves exclusively...
On May 17, 2021, The Supreme Court released its decision in one of the cases, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. By a vote of 7-1, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Sotomayor, who dissented, and Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Phil Goldberg and Karen Harned join us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center]]>1955cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-caniFeaturing:
Matt Cavedon, Criminal Defense Attorney, Gainesville, GA
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44914752Wed, 19 May 2021 19:17:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in Caniglia v. Strom, which focused on whether the community-caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extended to the home. By a vote of 9-0, the judgment of the...Featuring:
Matt Cavedon, Criminal Defense Attorney, Gainesville, GA
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3270cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-brown-v-becerra
Joining us to discuss the Brown v. Becerra argument and the status of the case to date is NCLA attorney Caleb Kruckenberg.

Featuring:
-- Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44898267Tue, 18 May 2021 20:21:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a moratorium on evictions nationwide on September 4, 2020 and coupled the moratorium with federal criminal penalties for those landlords who seek relief from state courts. In the first...
Joining us to discuss the Brown v. Becerra argument and the status of the case to date is NCLA attorney Caleb Kruckenberg.

Featuring:
-- Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>3659cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-joneFeaturing:
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44771746Wed, 12 May 2021 13:43:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 22, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Jones v. Mississippi. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Mississippi was affirmed. The case concerns a Mississippi statute that allows imposition of a life...Featuring:
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1256cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-wisconsin-equal-protec
Featuring:
-- Rick M. Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44754852Tue, 11 May 2021 15:26:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA biracial Wisconsin couple—Konkanok Rabieba and Richard Freihoefer—is suing the state of Wisconsin over its Minority Grant Program: a state scholarship program which awards education grants to certain minorities but not to others or to whites....
Featuring:
-- Rick M. Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty]]>1756cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-johnson-johnson-v-ingh
Attorney John Reeves, who filed an amicus brief for petitioners on behalf of the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers, will discuss the case and its implications.

Featuring:
-- John Reeves, Founder and Member, Reeves Law LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44683294Fri, 07 May 2021 15:56:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohnson & Johnson v. Ingham is a pending petition before the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves many important legal issues, specifically: (1) whether a court must assess if consolidating multiple plaintiffs for a single trial violates Due Process, or...
Attorney John Reeves, who filed an amicus brief for petitioners on behalf of the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers, will discuss the case and its implications.

Featuring:
-- John Reeves, Founder and Member, Reeves Law LLC]]>3584cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/artificial-intelligence-and-bias
Unlike some humans, AI models don't have malevolent biases or an intention to discriminate. Are they superior to human decision-making in that sense? Nonetheless, it is well established that AI systems can have a disparate impact on various identity groups. Because AI learns by detecting correlations and other patterns in a real world dataset, are disparate impacts inevitable, short of requiring AI systems to produce proportionate results? Would prohibiting certain kinds of correlations degrade the accuracy of AI models? For example, in a bail determination system, would an AI model which learns that men are more likely to be repeat offenders produce less accurate results if it were prohibited from taking gender into account?

Featuring:
-- Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
-- Nicholas Weaver, Researcher, International Computer Science Institute and Lecturer, UC Berkeley
-- Moderator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44662533Thu, 06 May 2021 15:08:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIt is hard to find a discussion of artificial intelligence these days that does not include concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems' potential bias against racial minorities and other identity groups. Facial recognition, lending, and bail...
Unlike some humans, AI models don't have malevolent biases or an intention to discriminate. Are they superior to human decision-making in that sense? Nonetheless, it is well established that AI systems can have a disparate impact on various identity groups. Because AI learns by detecting correlations and other patterns in a real world dataset, are disparate impacts inevitable, short of requiring AI systems to produce proportionate results? Would prohibiting certain kinds of correlations degrade the accuracy of AI models? For example, in a bail determination system, would an AI model which learns that men are more likely to be repeat offenders produce less accurate results if it were prohibited from taking gender into account?

Featuring:
-- Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
-- Nicholas Weaver, Researcher, International Computer Science Institute and Lecturer, UC Berkeley
-- Moderator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>3357cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_45Congress passed comprehensive criminal justice reform twice in the years following: the Fair Sentencing Act (2010) and the First Step Act (2018) which modified the application of the Fair Sentencing Act. Terry appealed his sentence, arguing his offense was a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act. The district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
On May 4, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument taking up the question whether Terry’s offense was a “covered offense” under Section 404 under the First Step Act and whether he is entitled to relief.
Featuring:
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44650900Wed, 05 May 2021 21:23:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThirteen years ago, Tarahrick Terry was charged with possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of cocaine base otherwise known as crack cocaine. He pled guilty and was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. 842(b)(1)(C) which set a range of 0-30 years....Congress passed comprehensive criminal justice reform twice in the years following: the Fair Sentencing Act (2010) and the First Step Act (2018) which modified the application of the Fair Sentencing Act. Terry appealed his sentence, arguing his offense was a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act. The district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
On May 4, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument taking up the question whether Terry’s offense was a “covered offense” under Section 404 under the First Step Act and whether he is entitled to relief.
Featuring:
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1379cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-coalition-for-thomas-j
Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, last month the Coalition for TJ filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that the school district’s new admission policy amounts to racial balancing in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Against a backdrop of perceived increased anti-Asian bias and concerns over equity in admissions in secondary and higher education, Coalition for TJ v. Brabrand offers the chance to discuss whether school districts are attempting to racially balance public schools and why the facts of the Coalition for TJ case make it a particularly good vehicle for a strategic challenge.



Featuring:

Erin Wilcox, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email annoucements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44647092Wed, 05 May 2021 17:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, or “TJ,” in Fairfax County, Virginia, is the nation’s top-ranked public high school. It’s also over 70% Asian-American. Until last fall, admission to TJ rested largely on...
Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, last month the Coalition for TJ filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that the school district’s new admission policy amounts to racial balancing in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Against a backdrop of perceived increased anti-Asian bias and concerns over equity in admissions in secondary and higher education, Coalition for TJ v. Brabrand offers the chance to discuss whether school districts are attempting to racially balance public schools and why the facts of the Coalition for TJ case make it a particularly good vehicle for a strategic challenge.



Featuring:

Erin Wilcox, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email annoucements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2399cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_44In this case, PennEast Pipeline used the Act to take forty-two New Jersey properties in order to build a pipeline. New Jersey fought the taking, arguing that PennEast was not appropriately authorized under the Act and even if the authorization were appropriate, sovereign immunity applied.
The District Court sided with PennEast, finding the exercise of eminent domain was authorized. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that even though the authorization under the Act was appropriate, the Act does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court takes up the question whether the Natural Gas Act does delegate federal eminent domain power and if so, whether that delegation removes Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity.
Featuring:
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44632595Tue, 04 May 2021 20:57:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of PennEast Pipeline LLC v. New Jersey. In this case, the Court will address the conflict between state sovereign immunity secured to the states by the Eleventh Amendment and...In this case, PennEast Pipeline used the Act to take forty-two New Jersey properties in order to build a pipeline. New Jersey fought the taking, arguing that PennEast was not appropriately authorized under the Act and even if the authorization were appropriate, sovereign immunity applied.
The District Court sided with PennEast, finding the exercise of eminent domain was authorized. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that even though the authorization under the Act was appropriate, the Act does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court takes up the question whether the Natural Gas Act does delegate federal eminent domain power and if so, whether that delegation removes Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity.
Featuring:
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2563cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-carrThomas Berry, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of petitioners, joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications
Featuring:
Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Managing Editor, Cato Supreme Court Review

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44631286Tue, 04 May 2021 19:33:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul. Writing for the unanimous Court and in reversing the lower court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants...Thomas Berry, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of petitioners, joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications
Featuring:
Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Managing Editor, Cato Supreme Court Review

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1988cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_43Joining us to discuss is Professor Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School.

Featuring:
Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44623873Tue, 04 May 2021 13:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which presents the question whether, under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., public high schools may discipline students for off-campus...Joining us to discuss is Professor Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School.

Featuring:
Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3459cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_42In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit held that felony DUI was not a crime of violence necessitating the deportation of a permanent resident-defendant. Now Palomar-Santiago challenges his current 8 U.S.C. 1326 illegal reentry indictment using Ninth Circuit precedent that his initial removal was fundamentally unfair since the crime underlying his deportation was improperly categorized.
The District Court agreed with Palomar-Santiago and the Ninth Circuit affirmed without addressing the merits of the government’s argument: that the Ninth Circuit's decision redefining felony DUI was wrongly decided.
The Supreme Court will address the question whether a defendant who was removed from the United States is automatically entitled to a defense of invalid removal where the crime underlying his removal is no longer a qualifying removal offense within his circuit.
Featuring:
Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44623753Tue, 04 May 2021 13:24:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago. Defendant Palomar-Santiago lost his permanent resident status in 1991 after a California felony DUI conviction. He was deported and subsequently...In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit held that felony DUI was not a crime of violence necessitating the deportation of a permanent resident-defendant. Now Palomar-Santiago challenges his current 8 U.S.C. 1326 illegal reentry indictment using Ninth Circuit precedent that his initial removal was fundamentally unfair since the crime underlying his deportation was improperly categorized.
The District Court agreed with Palomar-Santiago and the Ninth Circuit affirmed without addressing the merits of the government’s argument: that the Ninth Circuit's decision redefining felony DUI was wrongly decided.
The Supreme Court will address the question whether a defendant who was removed from the United States is automatically entitled to a defense of invalid removal where the crime underlying his removal is no longer a qualifying removal offense within his circuit.
Featuring:
Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2984cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_41
Joining us to discuss is Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP and the author of an amicus brief in the consolidated cases.

Featuring:
-- Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44623683Tue, 04 May 2021 13:16:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra. The Court will address what level of scrutiny is necessary for a...
Joining us to discuss is Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP and the author of an amicus brief in the consolidated cases.

Featuring:
-- Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>3540cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_40In this litigation, three refineries are challenging the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, which limits the availability of an EPA hardship exemption under the Renewable Fuel Standard of the Clean Air Act to those small refineries that can show “disproportionate economic hardship” and who have applied for an exemption for all preceding years. While the Tenth Circuit relies on the textual structure of the RFS, the refineries argue the Court’s interpretation belies the purpose of the exemption which Congress stated should be available for application “at any time.”
The Supreme Court takes up a question of statutory interpretation deciding whether a small refinery must not only show “disproportionate economic hardship,” but also receive continuous uninterrupted hardship exemptions to qualify for an additional RFS hardship exemption.
Featuring:
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44546726Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:29:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association. In this litigation, three refineries are challenging the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, which limits the...In this litigation, three refineries are challenging the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, which limits the availability of an EPA hardship exemption under the Renewable Fuel Standard of the Clean Air Act to those small refineries that can show “disproportionate economic hardship” and who have applied for an exemption for all preceding years. While the Tenth Circuit relies on the textual structure of the RFS, the refineries argue the Court’s interpretation belies the purpose of the exemption which Congress stated should be available for application “at any time.”
The Supreme Court takes up a question of statutory interpretation deciding whether a small refinery must not only show “disproportionate economic hardship,” but also receive continuous uninterrupted hardship exemptions to qualify for an additional RFS hardship exemption.
Featuring:
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2880cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-antitrust-paradox-a-conversation-witFeaturing:

Robert H. Bork, Jr., President, The Bork Foundation; President, Antitrust Education Project
Sen. Mike Lee, United States Senate, Utah
Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44520974Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:53:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities, & Antitrust Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "The Antitrust Paradox: A Conversation with Sen. Mike Lee and Robert Bork, Jr." Judge Robert H. Bork's famous work, The...Featuring:

Robert H. Bork, Jr., President, The Bork Foundation; President, Antitrust Education Project
Sen. Mike Lee, United States Senate, Utah
Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3369cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/revisiting-new-york-times-v-sullivanFeaturing:

Prof. Glenn Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Moderator: Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44516039Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "Revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan." The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan came under scrutiny...Featuring:

Prof. Glenn Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Moderator: Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3548cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-ohio-v-yellen
Featuring:
-- Benjamin Flowers, Solicitor General, Ohio
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44514974Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn mid-March 2021, the state of Ohio's attorney general filed suit against Janet Yellen and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, challenging a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act that involves federal and state tax policies. Benjamin Flowers,...
Featuring:
-- Benjamin Flowers, Solicitor General, Ohio
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>2007cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_39Supreme Court practice expert Daniel Ortiz joins us to discuss the case and review the oral arguments.
Featuring:
Prof. Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44511804Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:07:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The case involves the issue of whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the...Supreme Court practice expert Daniel Ortiz joins us to discuss the case and review the oral arguments.
Featuring:
Prof. Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law]]>1620cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-amg-ca
A panel of experts will discuss the ruling and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Alden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; former General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
-- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom
-- Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts; former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
-- Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44498552Mon, 26 Apr 2021 21:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court decided AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Breyer explained how Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not authorize the FTC to seek,...
A panel of experts will discuss the ruling and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Alden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; former General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
-- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom
-- Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts; former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
-- Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom]]>3356cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/international-corruption-and-the-venezue
This Teleforum will give listeners an update on where these cases stand as well as background on the nuances of prosecuting them. The speakers include Ryan Berg, a regional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael Nadler, a partner with the firm SFS Law in Miami, Florida, and former Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and who served as lead counsel in the cases against Mr. Saab as well as other Maduro-regime figures.

Featuring:
-- Ryan Berg, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
-- Michael B. Nadler, Partner, SFS Law
-- Moderator: Harout Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44497068Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:34:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOne year ago, the United States Department of Justice announced a series of indictments against major figures of the Venezuelan regime lead by Nicolas Maduro, including of Mr. Maduro himself. One significant case involves a Colombian businessman, Alex...
This Teleforum will give listeners an update on where these cases stand as well as background on the nuances of prosecuting them. The speakers include Ryan Berg, a regional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael Nadler, a partner with the firm SFS Law in Miami, Florida, and former Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and who served as lead counsel in the cases against Mr. Saab as well as other Maduro-regime figures.

Featuring:
-- Ryan Berg, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
-- Michael B. Nadler, Partner, SFS Law
-- Moderator: Harout Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper]]>3586cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/transgender-policy-in-the-biden-administJoin us for a discussion between Shannon Minter, transgender rights advocate and Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lauren Adams, noted feminist advocate and Legal Counsel at Women’s Liberation Front.
Featuring:
Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Lauren Adams, Legal Counsel, Women's Liberation Front
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
---
This event is open to Federalist Society Members. Register at the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44496802Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe national conversation over transgender students’ inclusion in student athletics and school facilities has received unparalleled levels of attention in the past weeks. Some transgender advocates argue affording equal rights to transgender...Join us for a discussion between Shannon Minter, transgender rights advocate and Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lauren Adams, noted feminist advocate and Legal Counsel at Women’s Liberation Front.
Featuring:
Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Lauren Adams, Legal Counsel, Women's Liberation Front
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
---
This event is open to Federalist Society Members. Register at the link above.]]>3575cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-yellen-v-Featuring:
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44455539Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:13:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and the consolidated case of Alaska Native Village Corporation Association v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation....Featuring:
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3381cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-st_1
During the interim following his appeal, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States and held that for conviction under 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), the United States must prove both (1) knowing possession of the firearm and (2) knowledge of felon-status. Gary supplemented his appeal with the Rehaif decision, arguing he had not been informed of the knowing-felon-status element of the crime when he pled guilty.

The Ninth Circuit found the district court’s omission of the knowing-felon-status element was plain error, vacated Gary’s conviction, and remanded even though Gary did not show he would not have taken the plea but for the district court’s omission.

The Supreme Court will decide whether Gary is automatically entitled to the relief awarded by the Ninth Circuit even where Gary does not attempt to show prejudice caused by the district court’s failure to inform Gary on the knowing-felon-status element.

Featuring:
-- Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44455384Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 20, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of United States v. Gary. In this case, defendant Gary pled guilty in federal court to two counts of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C....
During the interim following his appeal, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States and held that for conviction under 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), the United States must prove both (1) knowing possession of the firearm and (2) knowledge of felon-status. Gary supplemented his appeal with the Rehaif decision, arguing he had not been informed of the knowing-felon-status element of the crime when he pled guilty.

The Ninth Circuit found the district court’s omission of the knowing-felon-status element was plain error, vacated Gary’s conviction, and remanded even though Gary did not show he would not have taken the plea but for the district court’s omission.

The Supreme Court will decide whether Gary is automatically entitled to the relief awarded by the Ninth Circuit even where Gary does not attempt to show prejudice caused by the district court’s failure to inform Gary on the knowing-felon-status element.

Featuring:
-- Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>1441cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-city-of-s
Featuring:
-- Dean Charles Campbell, Associate Professor of Law, Interim Dean, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44455280Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:51:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com. In this case, the Court granted certiorari on the question whether the Fifth Circuit alone among all its sister circuits correctly...
Featuring:
-- Dean Charles Campbell, Associate Professor of Law, Interim Dean, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law]]>2385cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sanchez-vFeaturing:
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, Writer, Advocate, and Former United States Ambassador to East Timor

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44437762Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:28:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Sanchez v. Mayorkas. The Court will decide whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under the Immigration and Nationality Act satisfies the...Featuring:
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, Writer, Advocate, and Former United States Ambassador to East Timor

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1926cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-googleA panel of experts joins us to discuss the case, their differing views on the ruling, and its implications for copyright and intellectual property law.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael Risch, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor, Senior Scholar and Director of Copyright Research and Policy, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
---
This Zoom panel is open to public registration. See the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44424345Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:27:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 5, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Google v. Oracle. In a 6-2 decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that Google's use of a Java program constituted "fair use" under federal copyright law. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which...A panel of experts joins us to discuss the case, their differing views on the ruling, and its implications for copyright and intellectual property law.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael Risch, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor, Senior Scholar and Director of Copyright Research and Policy, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
---
This Zoom panel is open to public registration. See the link above.]]>3340cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/would-a-wealth-tax-pass-constitutional-m
Because Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States,” it took the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified in 1913, to enable Congress to tax incomes. Does the Constitution permit Congress to tax wealth? With co-author Prof. John R. Brooks, Prof. David Gamage wrote Why A Wealth Tax Is Definitely Constitutional. In The Warren Wealth Tax: A Response To Professor Bruce Ackerman, Prof. Jonathan Turley lays out some of the arguments to the contrary.

In this virtual discussion, Profs. Turley and Gamage will discuss the constitutional issues wealth tax proposals present.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School
-- Prof. David Gamage, Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law
-- Interlocutor: Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale
-- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44424100Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:13:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlways on the lookout for new sources of federal revenue, some lawmakers are now drawn to the prospect of taxing wealth. In 2020, Sen. Sanders proposed a “Make Billionaires Pay Act,” described briefly here. In her Presidential campaign, Sen. Warren...
Because Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States,” it took the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified in 1913, to enable Congress to tax incomes. Does the Constitution permit Congress to tax wealth? With co-author Prof. John R. Brooks, Prof. David Gamage wrote Why A Wealth Tax Is Definitely Constitutional. In The Warren Wealth Tax: A Response To Professor Bruce Ackerman, Prof. Jonathan Turley lays out some of the arguments to the contrary.

In this virtual discussion, Profs. Turley and Gamage will discuss the constitutional issues wealth tax proposals present.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School
-- Prof. David Gamage, Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law
-- Interlocutor: Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale
-- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC]]>3706cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/original-meaning-or-framers-intent-a-newJoining Mr. Drakeman to review his new book are two distinguished constitutional theorists, Professors Lawrence Solum of the University of Virginia and Keith Whittington of Princeton. All three will offer their views on the matters at hand in a discussion moderated by Judge Britt Grant of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Featuring:

Donald L. Drakeman, Distinguished Research Professor, Program in Constitutional Studies, University of Notre Dame
Prof. Lawrence B. Solum, William L. Matheson and Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44396953Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:33:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his new book, The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory: Why We Need the Framers, historian Donald Drakeman argues that in order to properly interpret the Constitution, one must consider the will of the lawmakers—in this case, those founding...Joining Mr. Drakeman to review his new book are two distinguished constitutional theorists, Professors Lawrence Solum of the University of Virginia and Keith Whittington of Princeton. All three will offer their views on the matters at hand in a discussion moderated by Judge Britt Grant of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Featuring:

Donald L. Drakeman, Distinguished Research Professor, Program in Constitutional Studies, University of Notre Dame
Prof. Lawrence B. Solum, William L. Matheson and Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3520cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-florFeaturing:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44396707Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:08:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 1, the Supreme Court ruled on an original jurisdiction dispute in Florida v. Georgia. Justice Barrett authored the Court's unanimous decision, holding that Florida did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the collapse of...Featuring:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2712cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-face
Telecommunications law experts Scott Delacourt and Daniel Lyons discuss the ruling and implications.

Featuring:
-- Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley
-- Prof. Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law, Boston College School of Law
-- Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Attorney Advisor, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44335618Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Facebook in Facebook v. Duguid. Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that a device must have the capacity to store or produce a telephone number using a number...
Telecommunications law experts Scott Delacourt and Daniel Lyons discuss the ruling and implications.

Featuring:
-- Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley
-- Prof. Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law, Boston College School of Law
-- Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Attorney Advisor, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr]]>3216cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-fcc-v-The distinguished panel that joined us to discuss oral arguments is returning to discuss the ruling and its implications.
Featuring:
Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute; former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group
---
This Zoom panel is open to public registration. See the above link.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44317623Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project. Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Kavanaugh explained that the FCC's 2017 decision to modify its media-ownership rules was not...The distinguished panel that joined us to discuss oral arguments is returning to discuss the ruling and its implications.
Featuring:
Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute; former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group
---
This Zoom panel is open to public registration. See the above link.]]>3331cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-discussion-of-aba-model-rule-8-4-g
Join us for a discussion of contrasting views from Professor Josh Blackman and Mr. Robert Weiner.

Featuring:
-- Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
-- Robert Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
-- Moderator: Kim Colby, Director of the Center of Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44275661Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmerican Bar Association Model Rule 8.4(g) defines professional misconduct in relevant part as “conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity,...
Join us for a discussion of contrasting views from Professor Josh Blackman and Mr. Robert Weiner.

Featuring:
-- Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
-- Robert Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
-- Moderator: Kim Colby, Director of the Center of Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society]]>3518cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-ford
In this case, two plaintiffs sued Ford alleging product liability causes of action resulting from death and serious injury that occurred during accidents allegedly caused by product defects. Markkaya Gullett died and Adam Bandamer was seriously injured. The pair of wrongful death and serious bodily injury product liability claims were brought separately in the states where the death and the injury respectively took place: Montana and Minnesota.

Ford Motor Co., as an out of state defendant incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan, argued in both cases that insufficient contacts connected Ford to the two forum states so neither the Montana nor the Michigan state court could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford. Both state court cases were heard by their state Supreme Courts and both times, the Supreme Courts ruled against Ford holding Ford was properly subject to personal jurisdiction in their state judicial system.

Ford appealed both state Supreme Court decisions on the constitutional Due Process question. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Ford holding that Ford’s contacts with both forum states were sufficiently extensive and connected to the subject matter of each suit that an exercise of personal jurisdiction could satisfy Due Process and was reasonable and fair in line with International Shoe.

Featuring:
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
-- Jaime A. Santos, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44275606Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court and the consolidated case of Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer. The case turned on specific personal jurisdiction, the type...
In this case, two plaintiffs sued Ford alleging product liability causes of action resulting from death and serious injury that occurred during accidents allegedly caused by product defects. Markkaya Gullett died and Adam Bandamer was seriously injured. The pair of wrongful death and serious bodily injury product liability claims were brought separately in the states where the death and the injury respectively took place: Montana and Minnesota.

Ford Motor Co., as an out of state defendant incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan, argued in both cases that insufficient contacts connected Ford to the two forum states so neither the Montana nor the Michigan state court could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford. Both state court cases were heard by their state Supreme Courts and both times, the Supreme Courts ruled against Ford holding Ford was properly subject to personal jurisdiction in their state judicial system.

Ford appealed both state Supreme Court decisions on the constitutional Due Process question. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Ford holding that Ford’s contacts with both forum states were sufficiently extensive and connected to the subject matter of each suit that an exercise of personal jurisdiction could satisfy Due Process and was reasonable and fair in line with International Shoe.

Featuring:
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
-- Jaime A. Santos, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP]]>2964cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/nation-state-cybercrime-perspectives-on-
Featuring:
-- Kellen Dwyer, Adjunct Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division
-- Alex Iftimie, Partner and Co-Chair, Global Risk & Crisis Management Practice, Morrison & Foerster LLP, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division
-- Moderator: Brian Lichter, Senior Director - Legal, Global Investigations & Cybersecurity Counsel, Cognizant Technology Solutions]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44242307Wed, 07 Apr 2021 15:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent cyber attacks by the Russian and Chinese governments involving SolarWinds and Microsoft exposed cyber-related vulnerabilities in the supply chains of many large and small companies that rely on SolarWinds and Microsoft for their internal...
Featuring:
-- Kellen Dwyer, Adjunct Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division
-- Alex Iftimie, Partner and Co-Chair, Global Risk & Crisis Management Practice, Morrison & Foerster LLP, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division
-- Moderator: Brian Lichter, Senior Director - Legal, Global Investigations & Cybersecurity Counsel, Cognizant Technology Solutions]]>3331cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-brow
Following a violent encounter with two undercover FBI agents, King sued alleging an FTCA cause of action and an implied Bivens claim. The District Court dismissed both claims. Then the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the District Court’s dismissal of King’s FTCA claims did not invoke the FTCA judgment bar because it had not reached the merits so King’s Bivens claim should be able to go forward.

In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit holding the District Court’s decision reached the merits and implicated the FTCA judgment bar.

Featuring:
-- Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
-- Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44209744Mon, 05 Apr 2021 20:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Brownback v. King, the Court addressed the Federal Tort Claims Act, (FTCA) which waives Federal sovereign immunity to allow plaintiffs to sue the United States for certain torts committed by Federal employees. The FTCA includes a judgment bar...
Following a violent encounter with two undercover FBI agents, King sued alleging an FTCA cause of action and an implied Bivens claim. The District Court dismissed both claims. Then the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the District Court’s dismissal of King’s FTCA claims did not invoke the FTCA judgment bar because it had not reached the merits so King’s Bivens claim should be able to go forward.

In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit holding the District Court’s decision reached the merits and implicated the FTCA judgment bar.

Featuring:
-- Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
-- Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>1934cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-jack-phillips-and-mastJoining us to discuss the complicated litigation is Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty.

Featuring:
Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44204912Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:50:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJack Phillips, of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame, is back in court for the third time since the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision. Phillips has most recently been sued in Colorado state court by Autumn Scardina, a transgender attorney who requested...Joining us to discuss the complicated litigation is Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty.

Featuring:
Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1814cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_38
Joshua Wright, a former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission, joins us to discuss the case, oral arguments, and implications.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Joshua D. Wright, University Professor and Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44165841Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 31, 2021, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of NCAA v. Alston. This case addresses a Ninth Circuit decision holding that the National Collegiate Athletic Association eligibility rules regarding compensation of...
Joshua Wright, a former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission, joins us to discuss the case, oral arguments, and implications.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Joshua D. Wright, University Professor and Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3436cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-goldman-s
Featuring:
Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44147703Thu, 01 Apr 2021 16:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 29, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. The case turns on class action issues and the 1988 Supreme Court case Basic Inc. v. Levinson. In Goldman...
Featuring:
Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2660cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-transunio
Featuring:
-- Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44132151Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 30, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. In this case, the Court will address the type of injury required by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Article III of the U.S....
Featuring:
-- Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute]]>1154cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/doctrine-briefing-the-ministerial-except
Featuring:
-- Victoria Dorfman, Partner, Jones Day]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44131509Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru (2020), the Supreme Court expanded on the ministerial exception doctrine it outlined in an earlier case, Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012). The doctrine holds that federal nondiscrimination laws do not apply to...
Featuring:
-- Victoria Dorfman, Partner, Jones Day]]>3070cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-torr
In a 5-3 decision, over the dissent of Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, the Supreme Court sided with Torres finding that a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment does take place where a police officer intentionally exerts force upon the person of another even where that person does not submit to the force exerted and even where the force is exerted from a distance.

Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44117870Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, March 25, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Torres v. Madrid. The case came before the court on a section 1983 claim filed by Roxanne Torres against two New Mexico police officers who were attempting to execute a warrant for her...
In a 5-3 decision, over the dissent of Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, the Supreme Court sided with Torres finding that a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment does take place where a police officer intentionally exerts force upon the person of another even where that person does not submit to the force exerted and even where the force is exerted from a distance.

Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>680cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-caniglia-The Supreme Court first created the community-caretaking exception in a case called Cady v. Dombrowski, which involved a crashed car that police towed to a private garage and then searched without first obtaining a warrant. The Court’s decision upholding the officers’ actions noted the differences between homes and vehicles, including that car accidents on public thoroughfares are a “nuisance” requiring officers’ immediate attention.
The First Circuit in Caniglia extended the community-caretaking exception to the home. Edward and Kim Caniglia, a married couple, had a disagreement one night in their Rhode Island abode. After Mr. Caniglia retrieved his unloaded handgun and asked “why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” Mrs. Caniglia left and spent the night in a motel.
The next morning, Mrs. Caniglia had the police escort her home. The police believed Mr. Caniglia could be a threat to himself, so they wanted to take him to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. Mr. Caniglia agreed to go based on the officers’ promise that they would not take his handguns while he was gone. But once Mr. Caniglia was admitted to the hospital, the officers entered the home without a warrant and seized his guns, claiming the community-caretaking exception justified their actions. And the First Circuit agreed.
Now, the Supreme Court is poised to address, for the first time, whether this community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement can be applied to searches and seizures within the home. The Supreme Court accepted the case on November 20, 2020 and will hear oral arguments on March 24, 2021.Featuring:
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Matt Cavedon, Assistant Public Defender, Northeastern Judicial Circuit

Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44101446Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Caniglia v. Strom, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the community-caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home. The general rule under the Fourth Amendment is that before police perform a...The Supreme Court first created the community-caretaking exception in a case called Cady v. Dombrowski, which involved a crashed car that police towed to a private garage and then searched without first obtaining a warrant. The Court’s decision upholding the officers’ actions noted the differences between homes and vehicles, including that car accidents on public thoroughfares are a “nuisance” requiring officers’ immediate attention.
The First Circuit in Caniglia extended the community-caretaking exception to the home. Edward and Kim Caniglia, a married couple, had a disagreement one night in their Rhode Island abode. After Mr. Caniglia retrieved his unloaded handgun and asked “why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” Mrs. Caniglia left and spent the night in a motel.
The next morning, Mrs. Caniglia had the police escort her home. The police believed Mr. Caniglia could be a threat to himself, so they wanted to take him to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. Mr. Caniglia agreed to go based on the officers’ promise that they would not take his handguns while he was gone. But once Mr. Caniglia was admitted to the hospital, the officers entered the home without a warrant and seized his guns, claiming the community-caretaking exception justified their actions. And the First Circuit agreed.
Now, the Supreme Court is poised to address, for the first time, whether this community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement can be applied to searches and seizures within the home. The Supreme Court accepted the case on November 20, 2020 and will hear oral arguments on March 24, 2021.Featuring:
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Matt Cavedon, Assistant Public Defender, Northeastern Judicial Circuit

Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>2021cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/when-the-government-changes-sides-in-ong
In the early months of the Biden Administration, the US Solicitor General's Office (OSG) has switched the federal government's position in several high-profile cases and withdrawn from other cases. While some may think the moves are politically motivated, there are legal reasons OSG switches its position between presidential administrations. Some believe, however, that OSG risks undermining the rule of law when it makes such decisions.

Are we seeing an increase in altered litigation positions following administration change, or have the recent administrations’ decisions been consistent with prior practice? What are the appropriate factors to consider? What are some important such cases in the current and previous administrations, and are the decisions to switch sides or end those cases defensible? How should courts treat the switches?

Featuring:
-- Beth Brinkmann, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP; former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice
-- Gene P. Hamilton, former Counselor to the Attorney General, Department of Justice
-- Hashim M. Mooppan, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Appellate and Counselor to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice
-- Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44068620Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 26, 2021, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a webinar panel to discuss "When the Government Changes Sides in Ongoing Litigation." In the early months of the Biden Administration, the US...
In the early months of the Biden Administration, the US Solicitor General's Office (OSG) has switched the federal government's position in several high-profile cases and withdrawn from other cases. While some may think the moves are politically motivated, there are legal reasons OSG switches its position between presidential administrations. Some believe, however, that OSG risks undermining the rule of law when it makes such decisions.

Are we seeing an increase in altered litigation positions following administration change, or have the recent administrations’ decisions been consistent with prior practice? What are the appropriate factors to consider? What are some important such cases in the current and previous administrations, and are the decisions to switch sides or end those cases defensible? How should courts treat the switches?

Featuring:
-- Beth Brinkmann, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP; former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice
-- Gene P. Hamilton, former Counselor to the Attorney General, Department of Justice
-- Hashim M. Mooppan, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Appellate and Counselor to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice
-- Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice]]>3706cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-unshackled-freeing-americas-
This program will focus on the debate over reform and school choice through the lens of a new book, Unshackled: Freeing America's K-12 Education System. Co-authors Clint Bolick and Kate

Featuring:
-- Hon. Clint Bolick, Supreme Court of Arizona
-- Kate Hardiman, William H. Rehnquist Fellow, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
-- Moderator: Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44067836Fri, 26 Mar 2021 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEducation policy has long been a bi-partisan priority, and education has played a significant role in the development of constitutional law—from First to Fourteenth Amendment—over the past century. During the COVID-19 pandemic, debates about the...
This program will focus on the debate over reform and school choice through the lens of a new book, Unshackled: Freeing America's K-12 Education System. Co-authors Clint Bolick and Kate

Featuring:
-- Hon. Clint Bolick, Supreme Court of Arizona
-- Kate Hardiman, William H. Rehnquist Fellow, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
-- Moderator: Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School]]>3607cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/debate-the-outer-reaches-of-the-unitary-
Featuring:
-- Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
-- Hon. Sharon Fast Gustafson, Former General Counsel, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44066916Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will include a discussion about the Unitary Executive Theory, its judicial and legislative history, and its applicability to the President’s recent termination of EEOC General Counsel Sharon Gustafson. Ms. Gustafson will share her...
Featuring:
-- Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
-- Hon. Sharon Fast Gustafson, Former General Counsel, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>3538cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-stJoining us to discuss the Oral Argument is Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP.



Featuring:
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP.



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44050455Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 23, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Cooley. The Court will address whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the suppression of evidence obtained when an Indian tribe police officer temporarily detained...Joining us to discuss the Oral Argument is Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP.



Featuring:
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP.



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2864cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ict-supply-chain-security-a-panel-discus_1
What do these actions mean for the ICT sector, and the semiconductor industry particularly? Will ORAN result in more secure and trusted 5G networks? Will it be adopted due to perceived long-term cost savings and operational benefits, or will government mandate its adoption? If the ICT supply chain rule goes into effect this month, will there be enough semiconductors to power 5G? Join us for a panel of informed experts to discuss these critical issues.

Featuring:
-- Maryam Khan Cope, Director, Government Affairs, Semiconductor Industry Association
-- Kelsey Guyselman, Deputy Policy Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
-- Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce
-- Gregory Watson, Policy Advisor, Hon. Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
-- Moderator: Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44038445Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:34:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 24, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order (EO) on a whole-of-government strategy to secure supply chains for critical and essential goods. The EO institutes a parallel examination of supply chain vulnerabilities: (1) a 100-day...
What do these actions mean for the ICT sector, and the semiconductor industry particularly? Will ORAN result in more secure and trusted 5G networks? Will it be adopted due to perceived long-term cost savings and operational benefits, or will government mandate its adoption? If the ICT supply chain rule goes into effect this month, will there be enough semiconductors to power 5G? Join us for a panel of informed experts to discuss these critical issues.

Featuring:
-- Maryam Khan Cope, Director, Government Affairs, Semiconductor Industry Association
-- Kelsey Guyselman, Deputy Policy Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
-- Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce
-- Gregory Watson, Policy Advisor, Hon. Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
-- Moderator: Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP]]>3510cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ict-supply-chain-security-a-panel-discusWhat do these actions mean for the ICT sector, and the semiconductor industry particularly? Will ORAN result in more secure and trusted 5G networks? Will it be adopted due to perceived long-term cost savings and operational benefits, or will government mandate its adoption? If the ICT supply chain rule goes into effect this month, will there be enough semiconductors to power 5G? Join us for a panel of informed experts to discuss these critical issues.
Register here to attend live
Featuring:
Maryam Khan Cope, Director, Government Affairs, Semiconductor Industry Association
Kelsey Guyselman, Deputy Policy Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce
Gregory Watson, Policy Advisor, Hon. Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
---
This Zoom panel is open to public registration. See the above link.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44038441Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 24, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order (EO) on a whole-of-government strategy to secure supply chains for critical and essential goods. The EO institutes a parallel examination of supply chain vulnerabilities: (1) a 100-day...What do these actions mean for the ICT sector, and the semiconductor industry particularly? Will ORAN result in more secure and trusted 5G networks? Will it be adopted due to perceived long-term cost savings and operational benefits, or will government mandate its adoption? If the ICT supply chain rule goes into effect this month, will there be enough semiconductors to power 5G? Join us for a panel of informed experts to discuss these critical issues.
Register here to attend live
Featuring:
Maryam Khan Cope, Director, Government Affairs, Semiconductor Industry Association
Kelsey Guyselman, Deputy Policy Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce
Gregory Watson, Policy Advisor, Hon. Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
---
This Zoom panel is open to public registration. See the above link.]]>3510international & national secur,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-cedar-poiPetitioners Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company, Inc., are California agricultural employers subject to the Access Regulation. In 2015, union organizers came onto the property of Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry plant harvester near the Oregon border. The same year, union organizers filed an unfair labor practices charge against Fowler Packing, a citrus and table grape grower, alleging that Fowler denied access to union organizers seeking to enter their property. Petitioners contend that the Access Regulation constitutes a per se taking by appropriating an easement for the benefit of third party union organizers. Petitioners add that, because there is no mechanism for providing just compensation to Petitioners, the Access Regulation violates the Takings Clause.Respondents are members of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. They argue that per se taking analysis is inappropriate because of time, place, and manner limitations contained in the Access Regulation. They urge the Court to analyze the Access Regulation under the multi-factor balancing test invoked in cases involving regulatory takings.In 1979, a divided California Supreme Court rejected a takings claim brought by other California growers shortly after the Access Regulation went into effect. Petitioners in this case brought this case in federal court. A divided Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision rejecting Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment claim, and Petitioners’ petition for rehearing en banc was denied over the dissent of eight judges. The Supreme Court accepted the case in November 2020, and will hear oral arguments on March 22, 2021.
Featuring:
Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44035770Wed, 24 Mar 2021 17:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Supreme Court will decide whether a California “Access Regulation” violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Access Regulation allows union organizers to enter the private property of...Petitioners Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company, Inc., are California agricultural employers subject to the Access Regulation. In 2015, union organizers came onto the property of Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry plant harvester near the Oregon border. The same year, union organizers filed an unfair labor practices charge against Fowler Packing, a citrus and table grape grower, alleging that Fowler denied access to union organizers seeking to enter their property. Petitioners contend that the Access Regulation constitutes a per se taking by appropriating an easement for the benefit of third party union organizers. Petitioners add that, because there is no mechanism for providing just compensation to Petitioners, the Access Regulation violates the Takings Clause.Respondents are members of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. They argue that per se taking analysis is inappropriate because of time, place, and manner limitations contained in the Access Regulation. They urge the Court to analyze the Access Regulation under the multi-factor balancing test invoked in cases involving regulatory takings.In 1979, a divided California Supreme Court rejected a takings claim brought by other California growers shortly after the Access Regulation went into effect. Petitioners in this case brought this case in federal court. A divided Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision rejecting Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment claim, and Petitioners’ petition for rehearing en banc was denied over the dissent of eight judges. The Supreme Court accepted the case in November 2020, and will hear oral arguments on March 22, 2021.
Featuring:
Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>1659cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-fede
The plaintiffs in Federal Republic of Germany are heirs of German Jewish art collectors who purchased a collection of medieval relics termed the Welfenschatz. As the Third Reich took control of Germany and began assimilating the great cultural achievements of the West, the Nazis government bought the Welfenschatz for one third of its value. Following World War II, the Welfenschatz changed hands, ultimately landing in a Berlin museum owned by the Federal Republic of Germany and maintained by the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (SPK).

After unsuccessfully seeking compensation from Germany, the heirs to the original owners brought common law property claims against Germany and SPK in United States District Court. Generally, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) would bar such a suit; Germany argued that the possibly applicable exception for “property taken in violation of international law” did not apply to domestic takings where a government takes the property of its own citizens. The heirs argued Germany’s coerced taking was an act of genocide bringing their suit within the exception since genocide violates international human rights law.

The Court relied on the long established history of international law to determine the phrase “property taken in violation of international law,” refers specifically to the law of expropriation, which includes the domestic taking rule. Violations of international human rights law do not fall within the phrase, so Germany retains sovereign immunity under FSIA and the heirs cannot recover in U.S. Courts. Relying on Federal Republic of Germany, the Court issued a per curiam decision in Republic of Hungary, directing the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to decide the case in light of its ruling in Federal Republic of Germany.

Featuring:
-- Professor Alberto R. Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law and Director of Global Engagement, DePaul College of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44035071Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously decided Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp and Republic of Hungary v. Simon. The plaintiffs in Federal Republic of Germany are heirs of German Jewish art collectors who purchased a collection...
The plaintiffs in Federal Republic of Germany are heirs of German Jewish art collectors who purchased a collection of medieval relics termed the Welfenschatz. As the Third Reich took control of Germany and began assimilating the great cultural achievements of the West, the Nazis government bought the Welfenschatz for one third of its value. Following World War II, the Welfenschatz changed hands, ultimately landing in a Berlin museum owned by the Federal Republic of Germany and maintained by the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (SPK).

After unsuccessfully seeking compensation from Germany, the heirs to the original owners brought common law property claims against Germany and SPK in United States District Court. Generally, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) would bar such a suit; Germany argued that the possibly applicable exception for “property taken in violation of international law” did not apply to domestic takings where a government takes the property of its own citizens. The heirs argued Germany’s coerced taking was an act of genocide bringing their suit within the exception since genocide violates international human rights law.

The Court relied on the long established history of international law to determine the phrase “property taken in violation of international law,” refers specifically to the law of expropriation, which includes the domestic taking rule. Violations of international human rights law do not fall within the phrase, so Germany retains sovereign immunity under FSIA and the heirs cannot recover in U.S. Courts. Relying on Federal Republic of Germany, the Court issued a per curiam decision in Republic of Hungary, directing the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to decide the case in light of its ruling in Federal Republic of Germany.

Featuring:
-- Professor Alberto R. Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law and Director of Global Engagement, DePaul College of Law]]>3297cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ricky-vaughns-prosecution-and-the-first-Featuring:
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43952844Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe DOJ has charged Douglas Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, with conspiracy “to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” people in the exercise of their constitutional rights. His crime? Using his social media platform in the months leading...Featuring:
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3486cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-uzueJohn Bursch, head appellate litigator at Alliance Defending Freedom, the firm that represented petitioner Chike Uzuegbunam, joins us to discuss the case, ruling, and implications for religious liberty, free speech law, and more.
Featuring:
John Bursch, Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom
---
This Teleforum is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43863207Fri, 12 Mar 2021 21:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. Writing for the 8-justice majority, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that a completed violation of a legal right does in fact satisfy the redressability element necessary for...John Bursch, head appellate litigator at Alliance Defending Freedom, the firm that represented petitioner Chike Uzuegbunam, joins us to discuss the case, ruling, and implications for religious liberty, free speech law, and more.
Featuring:
John Bursch, Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom
---
This Teleforum is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>1444cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-apache-stronghold-v-unApache Stronghold, a nonprofit organization that defends these sites, and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are challenging the judge's preliminary injunction at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
First Amendment expert Stephanie Barclay, co-author of the recent Harvard Law Review article "Rethinking Protections for Indigenous Sacred Sites," and A.J. Ferate, formerly Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, will give an update on this case and discuss legal implications.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Initiative, University of Notre Dame Law School
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
---
This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43862355Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyApache Stronghold v. United States is an ongoing case involving religious land use. On February 18, 2021, a federal judge allowed the government's plans to swap a portion of Tonto National Forest for land owned by Resolution Copper. Inside the...Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit organization that defends these sites, and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are challenging the judge's preliminary injunction at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
First Amendment expert Stephanie Barclay, co-author of the recent Harvard Law Review article "Rethinking Protections for Indigenous Sacred Sites," and A.J. Ferate, formerly Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, will give an update on this case and discuss legal implications.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Initiative, University of Notre Dame Law School
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
---
This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access.]]>3339cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-u-s-
Featuring:
-- Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law
-- Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43831976Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this case, Sierra Club, Inc. submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting biological impact reports that were made in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA had planned to construct “cooling...
Featuring:
-- Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law
-- Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>2660cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-pere
Featuring:
-- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43816738Tue, 09 Mar 2021 21:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Pereida v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court held 5-3 that an individual seeking relief from a lawful removal order under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) must “shoulder [the] heavy burden” of proving every element of eligibility for relief...
Featuring:
-- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland]]>1716cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_37In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court will address the split among the states and consider whether pursuit following probable cause of a misdemeanor always qualifies as an exigent circumstance allowing warrantless entry. Oral argument is scheduled for February 24, 2021.
Panelists Larry James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Browne & James LLP and General Counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, and Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, will join us to discuss.
Featuring:
Larry James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Browne & James LLP and General Counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43810758Tue, 09 Mar 2021 14:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Lange v. California, defendant Arthur Lange challenges the application of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment in California state court arguing exigent circumstances should apply only in genuine...In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court will address the split among the states and consider whether pursuit following probable cause of a misdemeanor always qualifies as an exigent circumstance allowing warrantless entry. Oral argument is scheduled for February 24, 2021.
Panelists Larry James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Browne & James LLP and General Counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, and Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, will join us to discuss.
Featuring:
Larry James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Browne & James LLP and General Counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3376cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_36
In this case, the DNC challenged two of Arizona’s voting procedures: discarding out-of-precinct provisional votes where the ballot itself was filled out properly and disallowing third parties to collect and deliver completed vote-by-mail ballots. The DNC argued the provisional ballot rule has a disparate impact on African American, Native American, and Hispanic citizens and the ban on third party delivery was enacted with discriminatory intent. On appeal, the Arizona Republican Party challenges the Ninth Circuit’s finding of discriminatory intent and argues that race neutral and generally applicable voting laws which offer all citizens an equal opportunity to vote do not violate Section 2. Although Arizona won at the District Court level and a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, the Ninth Circuit reheard en banc and reversed, finding the District Court clearly erred.

Featuring:
-- Professor Derek Muller, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43757656Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and the consolidated case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court will address issues raised under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment....
In this case, the DNC challenged two of Arizona’s voting procedures: discarding out-of-precinct provisional votes where the ballot itself was filled out properly and disallowing third parties to collect and deliver completed vote-by-mail ballots. The DNC argued the provisional ballot rule has a disparate impact on African American, Native American, and Hispanic citizens and the ban on third party delivery was enacted with discriminatory intent. On appeal, the Arizona Republican Party challenges the Ninth Circuit’s finding of discriminatory intent and argues that race neutral and generally applicable voting laws which offer all citizens an equal opportunity to vote do not violate Section 2. Although Arizona won at the District Court level and a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, the Ninth Circuit reheard en banc and reversed, finding the District Court clearly erred.

Featuring:
-- Professor Derek Muller, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law]]>2170cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_35Profs. Jennifer Mascott and Richard Pierce, distinguished experts in the field of administrative law, join us to discuss the case, review oral arguments, and discuss implications, and offer their thoughts on related constitutional questions.
Featuring:
Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

---
This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to be connected.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43757590Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carr v. Saul. This case involves important constitutional questions of appointments and officer status. Specifically, the case deals with the question of whether a claimant seeking...Profs. Jennifer Mascott and Richard Pierce, distinguished experts in the field of administrative law, join us to discuss the case, review oral arguments, and discuss implications, and offer their thoughts on related constitutional questions.
Featuring:
Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

---
This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to be connected.]]>3363cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-uProfs. Greg Dolin and Dmitry Karshtedt join us review oral arguments, discuss the case, and offer their divergent views on the merits in a discussion moderated by Prof. Kristen Osenga.
Featuring:
Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
---
This video Teleforum call is open to the public and press. Register above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43724789Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Arthrex Inc. on March 1, 2021. This case is an important one for the office of patent judges. At issue in the case is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative...Profs. Greg Dolin and Dmitry Karshtedt join us review oral arguments, discuss the case, and offer their divergent views on the merits in a discussion moderated by Prof. Kristen Osenga.
Featuring:
Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
---
This video Teleforum call is open to the public and press. Register above.]]>3499cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/law-and-corporate-social-responsibility
Featuring:
-- Hon. Myron T. Steele, Partner, Potter Anderson Corroon; former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
-- Hon. Elad L. Roisman, Commissioner and formerly Acting Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
-- Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners; former Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

* * * * *

As always, The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43704464Tue, 02 Mar 2021 14:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 25, 2021, The Federalist Society's Practice Groups and In-House Counsel Working Group hosted a lively panel on Law and Corporate Social Responsibility. With the start of the 2021 proxy season, the period when many public companies hold...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Myron T. Steele, Partner, Potter Anderson Corroon; former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
-- Hon. Elad L. Roisman, Commissioner and formerly Acting Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
-- Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners; former Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

* * * * *

As always, The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>2763cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/undue-delay-or-due-process-does-the-due-
Our expert panelists disagree on many of the principal issues of the case: Was Mr. Serrano entitled to a hearing promptly after his vehicle was seized? Is the current forfeiture hearing process and timeline consistent with due process and originalism? Will the Court take this case and what should they decide? On the call to discuss these fascinating questions and more is IJ attorney, Rob Johnson, Mr. Serrano’s lead attorney, and two of the leading experts on civil-asset forfeiture in the country today, Stef Cassella and David Smith.

Featuring:
-- Stef Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC
-- Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
-- David Smith, David B. Smith, PLLC
-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43704081Tue, 02 Mar 2021 14:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Institute for Justice (IJ) has filed a petition for certiorari in Serrano v. CPB, asking the Court: “When the government seizes a vehicle for civil forfeiture, does due process require a prompt post-seizure hearing to test the legality of the...
Our expert panelists disagree on many of the principal issues of the case: Was Mr. Serrano entitled to a hearing promptly after his vehicle was seized? Is the current forfeiture hearing process and timeline consistent with due process and originalism? Will the Court take this case and what should they decide? On the call to discuss these fascinating questions and more is IJ attorney, Rob Johnson, Mr. Serrano’s lead attorney, and two of the leading experts on civil-asset forfeiture in the country today, Stef Cassella and David Smith.

Featuring:
-- Stef Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC
-- Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
-- David Smith, David B. Smith, PLLC
-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>3743cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fireside-chat-with-bilal-sayyed-former-f
Featuring:
-- Bilal Sayyed, Senior Adjunct Fellow, TechFreedom; formerly Director, Federal Trade Commission Office of Policy Planning
-- Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43624309Wed, 24 Feb 2021 22:29:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group and Regulatory Transparency Project are pleased to host this fireside discussion between Mr. Bilal Sayyed, most-recently Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office of...
Featuring:
-- Bilal Sayyed, Senior Adjunct Fellow, TechFreedom; formerly Director, Federal Trade Commission Office of Policy Planning
-- Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA]]>4064cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/chinas-treatment-of-turkic-muslims
Featuring:
-- John B. Bellinger, III, Partner, Arnold & Porter
-- Prof. Beth Van Schaack, Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43624173Wed, 24 Feb 2021 21:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society hosts Prof. Beth Van Schaack and Mr. John Bellinger for a discussion about the current treatment of Turkic Muslim civilians by the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), under a policy that the PRC describes as a counter-terrorism...
Featuring:
-- John B. Bellinger, III, Partner, Arnold & Porter
-- Prof. Beth Van Schaack, Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School]]>3429cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-telecommunications-act-at-25-years-a
Now, a quarter century after the Telecom Act’s passage, we can celebrate the 25th anniversary and acknowledge the achievement, while – with the benefit of hindsight – also taking a critical look at what the 1996 Act actually accomplished and whether it needs updating. This program will address these fundamental questions: (1) what did the 1996 Act get right; (2) what did it get wrong; and (3) should it now be updated or substantially rewritten, and if so, in what way? The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group is pleased to host a distinguished panel to address these questions.

Free State Foundation President Randolph May, a former FCC Associate General Counsel with over four decades of experience in the communications law and policy field, will moderate a discussion among experts: Harold Furthgott-Roth, a former FCC commissioner who served as a principal House Commerce Committee staff member working on the 1996 Act; Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice in the Economics Department at Duke University who twice served as Chief Economist at the FCC; and Chris Lewis, President and CEO of Public Knowledge who has served as Deputy Director of the FCC’s Office of Legislative Affairs.

Featuring:
-- Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice, Duke University; former Chief Economist, Federal Communications Commission
-- Chris Lewis, President & CEO, Public Knowledge; former Deputy Director, FCC Office of Legislative Affairs
-- Hon. Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute; former FCC Commissioner
-- Moderator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43545111Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 8, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, the most significant revision of the Communications Act since its enactment in 1934. In the 1996 Act’s preamble, Congress declared the statute’s...
Now, a quarter century after the Telecom Act’s passage, we can celebrate the 25th anniversary and acknowledge the achievement, while – with the benefit of hindsight – also taking a critical look at what the 1996 Act actually accomplished and whether it needs updating. This program will address these fundamental questions: (1) what did the 1996 Act get right; (2) what did it get wrong; and (3) should it now be updated or substantially rewritten, and if so, in what way? The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group is pleased to host a distinguished panel to address these questions.

Free State Foundation President Randolph May, a former FCC Associate General Counsel with over four decades of experience in the communications law and policy field, will moderate a discussion among experts: Harold Furthgott-Roth, a former FCC commissioner who served as a principal House Commerce Committee staff member working on the 1996 Act; Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice in the Economics Department at Duke University who twice served as Chief Economist at the FCC; and Chris Lewis, President and CEO of Public Knowledge who has served as Deputy Director of the FCC’s Office of Legislative Affairs.

Featuring:
-- Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice, Duke University; former Chief Economist, Federal Communications Commission
-- Chris Lewis, President & CEO, Public Knowledge; former Deputy Director, FCC Office of Legislative Affairs
-- Hon. Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute; former FCC Commissioner
-- Moderator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group]]>3734cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-injunction-presumption-revisiting-eb
Featuring:
-- Mr. David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
-- Hon. Paul R. Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
-- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute
-- Moderator: Mr. Robert J. Rando, Partner, Taylor English Duma LLP; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society Intellectual Property Practice Group]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43351748Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group is pleased to host this panel discussion on the elimination of the injunction presumption by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange (2006), and what impact this decision...
Featuring:
-- Mr. David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
-- Hon. Paul R. Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
-- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute
-- Moderator: Mr. Robert J. Rando, Partner, Taylor English Duma LLP; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society Intellectual Property Practice Group]]>3835cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/virtual-currencies-and-the-rule-of-law
This disagreement represented a shift in positioning between the virtual currency industry and the regulators. Previously, many virtual currency adherents had argued its unique characteristics made standard regulations inapplicable. Regulators generally disagreed, imposing traditional financial regulatory frameworks such as the Howey-test, know-your-customer, and money transmitter requirements. Now virtual currency advocates claimed they were being singled out unfairly, and instead should be treated as their equivalents in the traditional financial system. Regulators argued that the unique characteristics of virtual currency justified a more stringent approach. This debate has significant consequences for the scope of government, combatting terrorism and other unlawful activity, personal privacy, and the future of money.

Featuring:
-- Sujit Raman, Partner, Sidley Austin
-- Jaikumar Ramaswamy, Head of Risk, cLabs
-- Shannen Coffin, Chair, Appeals and Advocacy, Steptoe
-- Moderator: Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43351379Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:50:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDuring the last weeks of the Trump Administration’s Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) unveiled a rule that received more comments than any other proposal in FinCen’s history. Over seven thousand commentors weighed...
This disagreement represented a shift in positioning between the virtual currency industry and the regulators. Previously, many virtual currency adherents had argued its unique characteristics made standard regulations inapplicable. Regulators generally disagreed, imposing traditional financial regulatory frameworks such as the Howey-test, know-your-customer, and money transmitter requirements. Now virtual currency advocates claimed they were being singled out unfairly, and instead should be treated as their equivalents in the traditional financial system. Regulators argued that the unique characteristics of virtual currency justified a more stringent approach. This debate has significant consequences for the scope of government, combatting terrorism and other unlawful activity, personal privacy, and the future of money.

Featuring:
-- Sujit Raman, Partner, Sidley Austin
-- Jaikumar Ramaswamy, Head of Risk, cLabs
-- Shannen Coffin, Chair, Appeals and Advocacy, Steptoe
-- Moderator: Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners]]>3718cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/prayer-and-jury-service-united-states-v-The Eleventh Circuit then granted en banc review in September 2020. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 23, 2021. Lea Patterson of First Liberty Institute joins us to discuss the case and its implications.
Featuring:
Lea Patterson, Counsel, First Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43309941Fri, 05 Feb 2021 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will address the upcoming Eleventh Circuit en banc argument in United States v. Brown, which concerns whether a juror may be removed from a deliberating jury because he prayed for and believed he received the Holy Spirit's guidance in...The Eleventh Circuit then granted en banc review in September 2020. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 23, 2021. Lea Patterson of First Liberty Institute joins us to discuss the case and its implications.
Featuring:
Lea Patterson, Counsel, First Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3035cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-potential-for-the-passage-of-the-pro
Featuring:
-- Maury Baskin, Shareholder and Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of the Practice Groups, Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43305139Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will discuss in detail the various provisions contained in the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act The Act, which increases worker rights, passed the House in last Congress and is expected to be reconsidered in the new Congress....
Featuring:
-- Maury Baskin, Shareholder and Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of the Practice Groups, Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy]]>3728cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-the-second-founding-an-introIn this teleforum, Profs. Steven Calabresi and Ilan Wurman will discuss Wurman's new book The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment, in which he argues not only that we should reclaim the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that doing so would lead to many desirable and surprising results. Professor Wurman argues that the privileges or immunities clause is not, like many originalists claim, a fundamental rights provision, but is instead an antidiscrimination provision. The implications for incorporation, economic liberty, school desegregation, and gay rights may surprise you.
Featuring:
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University; Author, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment

This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the event.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43272318Wed, 03 Feb 2021 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Fourteenth Amendment is now over 150 years old. The Supreme Court has long rejected interpreting that Amendment with its original meaning. But what would an originalist interpretation of the Amendment look like? Would it be unworkable for modern...In this teleforum, Profs. Steven Calabresi and Ilan Wurman will discuss Wurman's new book The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment, in which he argues not only that we should reclaim the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that doing so would lead to many desirable and surprising results. Professor Wurman argues that the privileges or immunities clause is not, like many originalists claim, a fundamental rights provision, but is instead an antidiscrimination provision. The implications for incorporation, economic liberty, school desegregation, and gay rights may surprise you.
Featuring:
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University; Author, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment

This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the event.]]>3223cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/aba-model-rule-8-4-g-in-pennsylvaniaFeaturing:
Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43234580Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) holds it misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination” in connection with the practice of law. Scholars have...Featuring:
Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3020cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-fA distinguished panel joined The Federalist Society on January 25, 2021 to discuss the case, the arguments, and the implications.
Featuring:

Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission


Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute; former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission


Mr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission


Moderator: Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group

***
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on matters of legal and public policy. Expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43234530Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, an important case involving issues of media ownership. Specifically, the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of...A distinguished panel joined The Federalist Society on January 25, 2021 to discuss the case, the arguments, and the implications.
Featuring:

Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission


Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute; former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission


Mr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission


Moderator: Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group

***
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on matters of legal and public policy. Expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>3580cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-congressional-review-act-first-brancFeaturing:
Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43234474Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAfter living in relative obscurity since its passage in 1996, the Congressional Review Act caught the nation’s attention in 2017 when a Republican-led Congress and newly-elected President Trump used it to overturn 14 “midnight”...Featuring:
Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3216cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/u-s-and-the-middle-east-trump-to-biden
Featuring:
-- Matthew R. A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute
-- Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43069815Fri, 22 Jan 2021 19:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhile China is the paramount strategic priority for the United States, the Middle East remains a region of significance for U.S. national security interests. The Trump administration prioritized pressure on Iran, efforts to reduce the number of U.S....
Featuring:
-- Matthew R. A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute
-- Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3355cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-believe-in-people-bottom-up-
Featuring:
-- Brian Hooks, Chairman and CEO, Stand Together
-- Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of the Practice Groups, Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43047380Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFollowing a year of disruptions not seen in generations: a global pandemic, economic crisis, social unrest, and a divisive political season, Americans are looking for a better way. In his new book, Believe in People: Bottom-Up Solutions for a...
Featuring:
-- Brian Hooks, Chairman and CEO, Stand Together
-- Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of the Practice Groups, Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy]]>3377cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_34
Featuring:
-- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43047284Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyNearly two dozen lawsuits against energy manufacturers seeking state tort damages over climate change have been filed in state courts. The defendants removed the cases to federal courts because the subject matter of the litigation involves exclusively...
Featuring:
-- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP]]>1935cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-federal-vacancies-reform-act-and-impFeaturing:
Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Stephen Migala, Attorney-Adviser, U.S. Department of State
Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43029584Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:14:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) is a federal statute permitting the President to appoint acting officials to fill vacancies that arise within federal departments and agencies when certain conditions are met. Last amended in 1998, the law...Featuring:
Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Stephen Migala, Attorney-Adviser, U.S. Department of State
Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3636cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-myths-and-facts-regarding-the-epa-s-
Featuring:
-- Rachel Jones, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
-- Clint Woods, Policy Fellow for Regulations, Americans for Prosperity
-- Moderator: Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43029739Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the past month, the Environmental Protection Agency has finalized two new transparency-related rules. The stated purpose of the rule “Increasing Consistency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process” is “to codify...
Featuring:
-- Rachel Jones, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
-- Clint Woods, Policy Fellow for Regulations, Americans for Prosperity
-- Moderator: Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.]]>3310administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/legacy-of-the-unalienable-rights-commiss
Human Rights organizations continue to write that they are alarmed by the Commission, arguing that it is the basis of a “pick-and-choose” version of human rights. Mary Ann Glendon, the Commission’s chair, recently stated, in a curated discussion with Secretary Pompeo, that human rights should be independent of sovereign decision making: “[I]f there are no rights that exist independently of the sovereign, then we are in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak and the vulnerable suffer the consequences.”

Are the Commission’s concerns different from the concerns that have been traditionally expressed in international human rights law, and, if so, what does the future hold for the Commission’s report?

Featuring:
-- Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. Department of State]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/43029415Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn May 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced formation of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, tasked with reexamining human rights in U.S. foreign policy. The very concept of “unalienable rights” proved immediately controversial with...
Human Rights organizations continue to write that they are alarmed by the Commission, arguing that it is the basis of a “pick-and-choose” version of human rights. Mary Ann Glendon, the Commission’s chair, recently stated, in a curated discussion with Secretary Pompeo, that human rights should be independent of sovereign decision making: “[I]f there are no rights that exist independently of the sovereign, then we are in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak and the vulnerable suffer the consequences.”

Are the Commission’s concerns different from the concerns that have been traditionally expressed in international human rights law, and, if so, what does the future hold for the Commission’s report?

Featuring:
-- Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. Department of State]]>3531cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-bp-p-l-c-v-mayor-and-cIndiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher joins us to preview this pivotal hearing, the implications for similar litigation around the country and his role in leading a 15-state coalition that is taking a stand against climate change litigation.
Featuring:
Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana Solicitor General
Moderator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42995424Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2018, the City of Baltimore filed climate change litigation in state court against multiple energy companies seeking damages from the impact of climate change. The energy companies moved the lawsuit to federal court, arguing it was the proper...Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher joins us to preview this pivotal hearing, the implications for similar litigation around the country and his role in leading a 15-state coalition that is taking a stand against climate change litigation.
Featuring:
Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana Solicitor General
Moderator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>2772cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_33
Featuring:
-- Hon. Alden Abbott, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
-- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom
-- Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42993215Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 13, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, a case that could define the scope of the FTC's remedial authority and explore the limits of textualism. The FTC Act authorizes the Commission to seek a...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Alden Abbott, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
-- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom
-- Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom]]>3394cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_32Featuring:
Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Justin Sadowsky, Trial Attorney, Council on American-Islamic Relations
Moderator: Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42933775Thu, 14 Jan 2021 13:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Tuesday, January 12, 2021, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. The issue the Court will be deciding is whether the government’s post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims. The...Featuring:
Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Justin Sadowsky, Trial Attorney, Council on American-Islamic Relations
Moderator: Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3076cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-craig-leen-directo
Featuring:
-- Craig Leen, Director of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42933623Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Director Craig Leen gives an overview of enforcement of civil rights and Equal Employment Opportunity laws at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) during the Trump Administration. Featuring: -- Craig Leen, Director...
Featuring:
-- Craig Leen, Director of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor]]>3588cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/clean-water-the-rule-of-law-recapping-4-
Featuring:
-- David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-- Moderator: Jeffrey H. Wood, Partner, Baker Botts L.L.P.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42438272Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnder the current administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted a variety of regulations and policies aimed at reforming the nation’s water quality programs, with a focus on cooperative federalism and rule of law...
Featuring:
-- David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-- Moderator: Jeffrey H. Wood, Partner, Baker Botts L.L.P.]]>3240cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/international-reference-pricing-and-nego
Featuring:
-- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute; Visiting Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
-- Dr. Wendell Primus, Senior Policy Advisor on Budget and Health Issues, Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Former Minority Staff Director, Joint Economic Committee
-- Moderator: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42849456Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDrug prices are a pressing policy issue. On November 20, 2020, President Donald Trump announced two new rules aimed at reducing drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. These rules use a system known as reference pricing, which ties the price the...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute; Visiting Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
-- Dr. Wendell Primus, Senior Policy Advisor on Budget and Health Issues, Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Former Minority Staff Director, Joint Economic Committee
-- Moderator: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society]]>3533cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-restoring-the-lost-priTune in for a fascinating discussion of the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the unique case of Courtney v. Danner. Counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice (IJ), and Fourteenth Amendment scholar Christopher Green, Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy at the University of Mississippi School of Law, will join IJ attorney and moderator Adam Griffin for an exciting litigation update.
Featuring:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. Christopher Green, Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42614462Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA new petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court presents an invaluable opportunity for the Court to revisit the Privileges or Immunities Clause. And it is unlike any opportunity in recent memory. First, it presents a question upon which every...Tune in for a fascinating discussion of the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the unique case of Courtney v. Danner. Counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice (IJ), and Fourteenth Amendment scholar Christopher Green, Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy at the University of Mississippi School of Law, will join IJ attorney and moderator Adam Griffin for an exciting litigation update.
Featuring:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. Christopher Green, Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3241cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/analyzing-the-epa-s-draft-memorandum-on-
Featuring:
-- Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42614394Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn April, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that, in certain situations, the Clean Water Act requires Section 402 permits for point source discharges that travel through groundwater to reach navigable waters. According to the Court, a permit...
Featuring:
-- Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>1391cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-texaFeaturing:
Anthony L. Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42559272Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 14, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in Texas v. New Mexico. By a vote of 7-1, Texas’ motion to review the Pecos River Master’s determination – that New Mexico was entitled to a delivery credit for evaporated...Featuring:
Anthony L. Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2393cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/chairman-ajit-pais-tenure-at-the-fcc-fir
Featuring:
-- Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
-- Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation
-- Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
-- Shane Tews, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
-- Moderator: Bryan Tramont, Managing Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42559247Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs 2020 draws to a close, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai joins Bryan Tramont, head of the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group and Managing Partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, in a fireside...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
-- Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation
-- Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
-- Shane Tews, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
-- Moderator: Bryan Tramont, Managing Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer]]>3529cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-amb-robert-lighthi
Featuring:
-- Hon. Robert Lighthizer, 18th United States Trade Representative
-- Moderator: Hon. Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

---
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42559087Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 14, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted an online teleforum with Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative. Ambassador Lighthizer discussed judicial activism at the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization....
Featuring:
-- Hon. Robert Lighthizer, 18th United States Trade Representative
-- Moderator: Hon. Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

---
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>3392cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/court-packing-term-limits-and-more-the-d
The battles over the nominations of Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett suggest that the Supreme Court is now part of the same politicized cloud that envelops all of the nation's public discourse. Politics have always played a role in judicial confirmations, but it's a modern phenomenon for divergent legal theories to map onto partisan preferences at a time when the parties are ideologically sorted and polarized. Has the culmination of these trends led some people to think of judges and justices in partisan terms, and to question the legitimacy of our judiciary altogether -- or at least its mode of selection and appointment? The threat of "court-packing" was a live issue in the 2020 campaign, as a potential Democratic response to alleged Republican violations of the norms surrounding judicial nominations. Is there anything we can do to fix this dynamic, to turn down the political heat on Supreme Court vacancies? Reform proposals abound: term limits, politically rebalancing or changing the size of the Court, setting new rules for the confirmation process, and more. President-elect Joe Biden promised to establish a bipartisan judicial reform commission and our distinguished panel will provide a preview of the sort of discussion such a commission would likely have.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law School
-- Prof. James T. Lindgren, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
-- Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network
-- Prof. Rivka Weill, Professor of Law, Harry Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center
-- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
-- Introduction: Nick Marr, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

---
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42554350Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 16, 2020, The Federalist Society's Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a debate on "Court-Packing, Term Limits, and the Debate Over Reforming the Judiciary." The battles over the nominations of Merrick Garland, Neil...
The battles over the nominations of Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett suggest that the Supreme Court is now part of the same politicized cloud that envelops all of the nation's public discourse. Politics have always played a role in judicial confirmations, but it's a modern phenomenon for divergent legal theories to map onto partisan preferences at a time when the parties are ideologically sorted and polarized. Has the culmination of these trends led some people to think of judges and justices in partisan terms, and to question the legitimacy of our judiciary altogether -- or at least its mode of selection and appointment? The threat of "court-packing" was a live issue in the 2020 campaign, as a potential Democratic response to alleged Republican violations of the norms surrounding judicial nominations. Is there anything we can do to fix this dynamic, to turn down the political heat on Supreme Court vacancies? Reform proposals abound: term limits, politically rebalancing or changing the size of the Court, setting new rules for the confirmation process, and more. President-elect Joe Biden promised to establish a bipartisan judicial reform commission and our distinguished panel will provide a preview of the sort of discussion such a commission would likely have.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law School
-- Prof. James T. Lindgren, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
-- Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network
-- Prof. Rivka Weill, Professor of Law, Harry Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center
-- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
-- Introduction: Nick Marr, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

---
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>5383cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-usmca-and-the-rapid-response-enforce
Featuring:
-- Lewis Karesh, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Labor
-- Matthew Levin, Director, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor
-- Stefan J. Marculewicz, Shareholder and Co-Chair, Business and Human Rights Practice Group, Littler Mendelson P.C.
-- Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan & Lewis]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42554068Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) free trade agreement went into force in July of 2020. Under that agreement, Mexico committed to a comprehensive reform of its laws governing labor unions and collective bargaining. Mexico's labor laws...
Featuring:
-- Lewis Karesh, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Labor
-- Matthew Levin, Director, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor
-- Stefan J. Marculewicz, Shareholder and Co-Chair, Business and Human Rights Practice Group, Littler Mendelson P.C.
-- Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan & Lewis]]>3774cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-unit_2Featuring:
Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties; Resident Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Prof. Richard Sala, Assistant Professor of Law, Vermont Law School



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42539269Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States v. Briggs. Consolidated with United States v. Collins, United States v. Briggs challenged the idea that a rape charge may only be prosecuted if it is discovered within five...Featuring:
Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties; Resident Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Prof. Richard Sala, Assistant Professor of Law, Vermont Law School



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2012cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-rutl
Featuring:
-- Anthony G. Provenzano, Member, Miller & Chevalier]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42537934Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. By a vote of 8-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit was reversed and the case remanded. Per Justice...
Featuring:
-- Anthony G. Provenzano, Member, Miller & Chevalier]]>1854cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-tanzFeaturing:
Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42520470Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 10, the Supreme Court decided the case of Tanzin v. Tanvir. The 8-0 ruling affirmed the judgement of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that "appropriate relief" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) includes claims...Featuring:
Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2184religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_31Featuring:
Erika C. Birg, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42520578Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. will have oral arguments at the Supreme Court on December 8, 2020. At issue is whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an...Featuring:
Erika C. Birg, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1839cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-implications-and-importance-of-cic-sWe are joined by a panel of experts to discuss the oral arguments, and the various policy implications of the potential rulings.
Featuring:
Prof. Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale, and Adjunct Professor, Tax Practice and Procedure (Administrative), Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute


Please dial 1-888-752-3232 to participate.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42487164Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 1st, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service. The case involves whether courts have jurisdiction over challenges to the validity of Internal Revenue Service rules or regulations...We are joined by a panel of experts to discuss the oral arguments, and the various policy implications of the potential rulings.
Featuring:
Prof. Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale, and Adjunct Professor, Tax Practice and Procedure (Administrative), Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute


Please dial 1-888-752-3232 to participate.]]>3718cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_30In Republic of Hungary v. Simon, the issue is whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies.
In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the issue is whether the “expropriation exception” of the FSIA, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property. Is the doctrine of international comity unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims?
Prof. Alberto Coll and moderator Jim Dunlop join us to discuss both these cases.
Featuring:
Prof. Alberto R. Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law and Director of Global Engagement, DePaul College of Law
James C. Dunlop, Senior Attorney, Sensient Technologies Corporation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42486681Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 7, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). In Republic of Hungary v. Simon, the issue is whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the...In Republic of Hungary v. Simon, the issue is whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies.
In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the issue is whether the “expropriation exception” of the FSIA, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property. Is the doctrine of international comity unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims?
Prof. Alberto Coll and moderator Jim Dunlop join us to discuss both these cases.
Featuring:
Prof. Alberto R. Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law and Director of Global Engagement, DePaul College of Law
James C. Dunlop, Senior Attorney, Sensient Technologies Corporation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3658cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_29Featuring:
Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42486638Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Mnuchin v. Collins will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on December 9, 2020. The case involves the Federal Housing Finance Agency's 2008 decision to appoint itself conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the issues...Featuring:
Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1256cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-hester-peirce-commhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/42486751Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Hester Peirce, Commissioner on the Securities and Exchange Commission, discusses the intersection of individual liberty and securities regulation.3329cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_28Featuring:
Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein
Prof. Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law, Boston College School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42438225Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Facebook Inc. v. Duguid will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on December 8, 2020. At issue in the case is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's definition of "automatic telephone dialing system," and whether this phrase...Featuring:
Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein
Prof. Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law, Boston College School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3114cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-roma
Featuring:
-- Eric Rassbach, Vice President & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42438171Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 25, 2020, the Supreme Court barred New York Governor Andrew Cuomo from enforcing Executive Order 202.68 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Application for injunctive relief was granted in...
Featuring:
-- Eric Rassbach, Vice President & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>3747cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_27Featuring:
William S. McClintock, Associate, King & Spalding LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42398368Wed, 09 Dec 2020 14:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Edwards v. Vannoy will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on December 2, 2020. At issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. William...Featuring:
William S. McClintock, Associate, King & Spalding LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1853cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_26Featuring:
David C. Rybicki, Partner, K&L Gates LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42381207Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe I (consolidated with Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I) will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on December 1, 2020. At issue is whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought...Featuring:
David C. Rybicki, Partner, K&L Gates LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2378cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_25Featuring:
Prof. Orin Kerr, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42280672Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Van Buren v. United States will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on November 30, 2020. At issue is whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the...Featuring:
Prof. Orin Kerr, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2201cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_24
Featuring:
-- Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42280607Wed, 02 Dec 2020 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. New York. The case has garnered widespread media attention and arose over the attempt by the Trump administration to exclude noncitizens from the population numbers for the...
Featuring:
-- Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University]]>3091cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/critical-race-theory-fighting-racism-or-Featuring:
Mike Gonzalez, Senior Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy and Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Peter N. Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
Professor Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Professor Daria Roithmayr, Richard L. and Antoinette S. Kirtland Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
Moderator: Mark Pulliam, Contributing Editor, Law & Liberty



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42142978Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe post-modern social science framework of “critical race theory” is well-known in certain academic circles and trending in corporate settings. CRT-inspired concepts and terminology-- such as “white privilege,”...Featuring:
Mike Gonzalez, Senior Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy and Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Peter N. Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
Professor Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Professor Daria Roithmayr, Richard L. and Antoinette S. Kirtland Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
Moderator: Mark Pulliam, Contributing Editor, Law & Liberty



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3573cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-arguments-teleforu_1Featuring:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42142195Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn NFIB v. Sibelius, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by branding the penalty for not buying health insurance as a tax. In 2017 however, the Republican-controlled Congress under...Featuring:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>2540cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-nlrb-what-s-the-latest-and-what-to-e
Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Assocation
-- Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42142755Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe National Labor Relations Board has been busy, with new standards about offensive workplace conduct, labor contract management rights clauses, discipline issues, arbitration, and independent contractors, among other things. And the NLRB has...
Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Assocation
-- Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP]]>3843cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-annual-mike-lewis-memorial-teleforum
This year’s teleforum will focus on The International Criminal Court (ICC). The current Prosecutor has chosen to focus attention on U.S. actions in Afghanistan. The Trump administration responded with targeted sanctions on two ICC officials. Meanwhile, the ICC is attempting to rewrite the law of armed conflict to narrow permissible targeting. Current plans call for the selection of a third prosecution and six new judges. The incoming administration faces a range of challenges from the court.

These and related matters will be explored by Professor Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. He is also a former military officer, and an experienced practitioner before international tribunals. He recently filed an amicus brief on the Law of Targeting at the request of the ICC. His discussion will be facilitated by Professor Jeremy Rabkin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law at Vanderbilt Law School
-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42142841Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWe are pleased to present the annual Mike Lewis Memorial teleforum. Professor Lewis was a naval aviator, internationally renowned law professor, and tireless public advocate for a principled and wise application of the Law of Armed Conflict,...
This year’s teleforum will focus on The International Criminal Court (ICC). The current Prosecutor has chosen to focus attention on U.S. actions in Afghanistan. The Trump administration responded with targeted sanctions on two ICC officials. Meanwhile, the ICC is attempting to rewrite the law of armed conflict to narrow permissible targeting. Current plans call for the selection of a third prosecution and six new judges. The incoming administration faces a range of challenges from the court.

These and related matters will be explored by Professor Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. He is also a former military officer, and an experienced practitioner before international tribunals. He recently filed an amicus brief on the Law of Targeting at the request of the ICC. His discussion will be facilitated by Professor Jeremy Rabkin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law at Vanderbilt Law School
-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3533cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-the-property-species-mine-yo
Featuring:
-- Professor Bart J. Wilson, Director of the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy at Chapman University and author of The Property Species
-- Moderator: Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42142276Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:02:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his new book The Property Species, Chapman University law professor Bart Wilson offers a strikingly original look at the origin and meaning of private property. Unlike scholars who argue that property is a “social construct,” Wilson argues that...
Featuring:
-- Professor Bart J. Wilson, Director of the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy at Chapman University and author of The Property Species
-- Moderator: Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute]]>3463cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_23The issues before the Supreme Court involve the appropriate standard for a free-exercise claim, reconsideration of the Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and the grounds on which a government can condition foster-care participation.
Mark Rienzi, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, joins us to discuss oral arguments. Becket is representing plaintiffs in this case.

Featuring:

Mark L. Rienzi, President, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law


This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to be connected.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42021253Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum reviews the November 4 oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In March 2018, Philadelphia’s Department of Health and Human Services stopped placing foster children with families certified and supported by Catholic Social...The issues before the Supreme Court involve the appropriate standard for a free-exercise claim, reconsideration of the Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and the grounds on which a government can condition foster-care participation.
Mark Rienzi, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, joins us to discuss oral arguments. Becket is representing plaintiffs in this case.

Featuring:

Mark L. Rienzi, President, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law


This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to be connected.]]>2673cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_22Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42021176Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs a convicted felon, Charles Borden Jr. was in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) when caught at a traffic stop with a pistol. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, Borden was sentenced to nine years and seven months imprisonment. The U.S....Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>972cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-brownback-v-kin
The question before the Court is whether this judgment bar provision is triggered in an action with both FTCA and constitutional claims, when an FTCA claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will hear this case on November 9, 2020.

Featuring:
-- Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney, Institute for Justice
-- Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42021032Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen it enacted the FTCA, Congress waived sovereign immunity and accepted vicarious liability for certain torts committed by federal employees. The judgment bar provision of the FTCA provides that the judgment in an FTCA action “shall constitute a...
The question before the Court is whether this judgment bar provision is triggered in an action with both FTCA and constitutional claims, when an FTCA claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will hear this case on November 9, 2020.

Featuring:
-- Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney, Institute for Justice
-- Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins LLP]]>3469cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_21
Featuring:
-- Marc Levin, Chief of Policy & Innovation, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/42020985Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen it comes to juvenile convictions and sentencing, some gray areas may be encountered. Brett Jones found himself a product of this uncertainty in his post-conviction relief proceeding. At the age of 15 Jones stabbed his grandfather to death and was...
Featuring:
-- Marc Levin, Chief of Policy & Innovation, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation]]>2160cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_20Featuring:
Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Nancie G. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41831676Fri, 06 Nov 2020 17:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnder the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must approve clean water intakes, used by factories to cool machinery, before any are built. The EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine...Featuring:
Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Nancie G. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2295cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-van-buren-v-uni

Featuring:

Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP


This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41831534Fri, 06 Nov 2020 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) makes it a crime (and a tort) to access “without authorization” a computer to obtain information from that computer. But is the CFAA limited to cases in which an outsider hacks into a system or...

Featuring:

Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP


This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>2324cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/iran-snapback
Featuring:
-- Brian Hook, former U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
-- Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41831629Fri, 06 Nov 2020 13:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIran is in significant non-performance of its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Yet, the United Nations Security Council and America’s European allies have failed to “snapback” sanctions on Iran as agreed in the JCPOA....
Featuring:
-- Brian Hook, former U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
-- Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3367cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-hon-beth-a-william
Featuring:
-- Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41831586Fri, 06 Nov 2020 13:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Beth Williams, the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy at the United States Department of Justice, discusses the priorities and work of her office during COVID-19 and 2020. Featuring: -- Hon. Beth A. Williams,...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice]]>2589cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/catholic-judges-and-the-death-penalty
Featuring:
-- Ryan Proctor, Associate, Jones Day]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41778361Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:12:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyCan Catholic judges, consistently with their faith, participate in death penalty cases? Faithful Catholics who have considered the question in recent decades have reached different conclusions. In 1998, Judge Amy Barrett, then a law clerk on the...
Featuring:
-- Ryan Proctor, Associate, Jones Day]]>3134cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/should-the-federal-government-be-in-the-
Featuring:
-- Jon Adame, General Counsel, Office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn
-- Kelly Cole, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, CTIA
-- George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
-- Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies; member of the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Executive Committee]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41701508Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:38:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Department of Defense (DoD) recently issued a Request for Information about the possibility of constructing a new national 5G network on 450 MHz of mid-band spectrum presently assigned to the Department. Access to this spectrum by commercial...
Featuring:
-- Jon Adame, General Counsel, Office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn
-- Kelly Cole, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, CTIA
-- George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
-- Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies; member of the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Executive Committee]]>3755cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/united-states-v-google
Today's Teleforum is cosponsored by The Bork Foundation, a non-partisan, nonprofit educational foundation just launched, led by Robert H. Bork, Jr. who chairs a board which includes today's speaker, George L. Priest, the Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics and Kauffman Distinguished Research Scholar in Law, Economics, and Entrepreneurship at Yale Law School. The Bork Foundation was launched this month to promote the life and legacy of Robert H. Bork: lawyer, Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, federal appellate court judge, Supreme Court nominee, author, and public intellectual.

Featuring:
-- George L. Priest, the Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics and Kauffman Distinguished Research Scholar in Law, Economics, and Entrepreneurship at Yale Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41701756Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis week, the United States Department of Justice launched its rumored antitrust law suit against Google. The government's complaint brief alleges that Google has a monopoly in search and search advertising, and has unlawfully maintained that...
Today's Teleforum is cosponsored by The Bork Foundation, a non-partisan, nonprofit educational foundation just launched, led by Robert H. Bork, Jr. who chairs a board which includes today's speaker, George L. Priest, the Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics and Kauffman Distinguished Research Scholar in Law, Economics, and Entrepreneurship at Yale Law School. The Bork Foundation was launched this month to promote the life and legacy of Robert H. Bork: lawyer, Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, federal appellate court judge, Supreme Court nominee, author, and public intellectual.

Featuring:
-- George L. Priest, the Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics and Kauffman Distinguished Research Scholar in Law, Economics, and Entrepreneurship at Yale Law School]]>3199cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supreme-court-criminal-law-roundup-a-looFeaturing:
Dean A. Mazzone, Senior Trial Counsel, Massachusetts Attorney General
Matthew Cavedon, Assistant Public Defender, Northeastern Judicial Circuit

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41606667Fri, 23 Oct 2020 17:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin Dean Mazzone and Matt Cavedon for a discussion of major criminal cases at the U.S. Supreme Court from both last year and the current term. Discussion will cover areas of law ranging from the death penalty and searches and seizures to sentencing...Featuring:
Dean A. Mazzone, Senior Trial Counsel, Massachusetts Attorney General
Matthew Cavedon, Assistant Public Defender, Northeastern Judicial Circuit

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3188cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-executive-branch-the-supreme-court-aFeaturing:
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41606558Fri, 23 Oct 2020 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as John Malcolm and John Yoo discuss recent Supreme Court news, the 25th amendment, what happens if the Electoral College deadlocks (or fails), as well as the latest on the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Featuring: John...Featuring:
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3703cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/born-in-the-usa-a-debate-on-the-meaning-
In conjunction with the Chapman University and UCLA Federalist Society chapters, the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group is poised to host renowned Constitutional scholars John Eastman and Eugene Volokh. Eastman and Volokh will debate the meaning of the Constitution's citizenship clauses live on Zoom. The Honorable Andrew Guilford, Ret., will moderate with Q&A to follow.

Featuring:
-- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
-- John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
-- Moderator: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Court, Central District of California]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41570712Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyArticle II and the 12th Amendment require those seeking the office of President and Vice-President be a natural-born citizen. The 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are...
In conjunction with the Chapman University and UCLA Federalist Society chapters, the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group is poised to host renowned Constitutional scholars John Eastman and Eugene Volokh. Eastman and Volokh will debate the meaning of the Constitution's citizenship clauses live on Zoom. The Honorable Andrew Guilford, Ret., will moderate with Q&A to follow.

Featuring:
-- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
-- John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
-- Moderator: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Court, Central District of California]]>4429cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_19Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41556226Tue, 20 Oct 2020 18:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2014, Roxanne Torres pleaded guilty to three crimes: aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, assault on a police officer, and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. All of these crimes occurred while Ms. Torres was under the influence of...Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>819cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_18Featuring:
Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties; Resident Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Prof. Richard Sala, Assistant Professor of Law, Vermont Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41556096Tue, 20 Oct 2020 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyConsolidated with United States v. Collins, United States v. Briggs challenges the idea that a rape charge may only be prosecuted if it is discovered within five years of the crime. Michael Briggs was found guilty of rape in 2014; however, Briggs...Featuring:
Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties; Resident Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Prof. Richard Sala, Assistant Professor of Law, Vermont Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2537cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_16Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
Jaime A. Santos, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41554166Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLiability in motor vehicle accidents is frequently an issue necessitating litigation, but not typically at the level of the Supreme Court. In this case, though, two incidents rose all the way to our highest court. In a Minnesota accident, a passenger...Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
Jaime A. Santos, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2803cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-economics-and-ethics-of-insider-trad
Featuring:
-- Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale University
-- John Anderson, Professor of Law, Mississippi College School of Law, and the author of Insider Trading: Law, Ethics, and Reform
-- Moderator: Kevin R. Douglas, Assistant Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41556465Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThere was surprising momentum on the issue of insider trading reform at the start of 2020. On December 9, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Insider Trading Prohibition Act with wide bi-partisan support. In January 2020, the Securities...
Featuring:
-- Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale University
-- John Anderson, Professor of Law, Mississippi College School of Law, and the author of Insider Trading: Law, Ethics, and Reform
-- Moderator: Kevin R. Douglas, Assistant Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law]]>3050cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-staggers-act-turns-forty-lessons-lea
Please join us for a discussion to analyze the rail regulatory experience and to see if there are any lessons to be learned from efforts to impose "common carrier" utility regulations on other sectors in the American economy. Covered topics will include a summary of rail deregulation, how it continues to be challenged and why core tenets of the Staggers Act are especially relevant for salient discussions related to ratemaking and due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Featuring:
-- George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
-- Timothy Strafford, Associate General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Association of American Railroads
-- Moderator: Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41555906Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOctober 14, 2020 marks the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Staggers Rail Act -- the law that largely deregulated economic dealings within the freight rail sector. So far removed, the anniversary may seem irrelevant, but the opposite is true:...
Please join us for a discussion to analyze the rail regulatory experience and to see if there are any lessons to be learned from efforts to impose "common carrier" utility regulations on other sectors in the American economy. Covered topics will include a summary of rail deregulation, how it continues to be challenged and why core tenets of the Staggers Act are especially relevant for salient discussions related to ratemaking and due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Featuring:
-- George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
-- Timothy Strafford, Associate General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Association of American Railroads
-- Moderator: Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>3348cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_17
Featuring:
-- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41555821Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyClemente Avelino Pereida faced removability charges by the Department of Homeland Security after receiving a conviction of attempted criminal impersonation in Nebraska. As a citizen and native of Mexico, Pereida filed for an application for relief...
Featuring:
-- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland]]>2708cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-hon-paul-j-ray-oir
Featuring:
-- Hon. Paul J. Ray, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41555746Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Paul Ray, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, discusses the priorities and work of his office during 2020. Featuring: -- Hon. Paul J. Ray, Administrator of the...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Paul J. Ray, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget]]>2319cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-america-in-the-world-a-histo
Featuring:
-- Robert B. Zoellick, Author, America in the World: A History of U.S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy
-- Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41554117Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRanging from Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson to Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, and James Baker, America in the World tells the vibrant story of American diplomacy. Recounting the actors and events of U.S. foreign policy,...
Featuring:
-- Robert B. Zoellick, Author, America in the World: A History of U.S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy
-- Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute]]>3388cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_15
Featuring:

Jordana Rubel, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, which co-wrote the government's brief

Prof. Michael Risch, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law; author of amicus brief in support of Google

Moderator: Steven Tepp, President & CEO, Sentinel Worldwide; Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School; author of amicus brief in support of Oracle

This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41461799Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyGoogle copied over 11,000 lines of computer code, called declaring code, owned by Oracle. Ten years after Oracle filed suit, the Supreme Court will hear the oral argument on October 7, 2020. Google says the code is purely functional, is...
Featuring:

Jordana Rubel, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, which co-wrote the government's brief

Prof. Michael Risch, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law; author of amicus brief in support of Google

Moderator: Steven Tepp, President & CEO, Sentinel Worldwide; Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School; author of amicus brief in support of Oracle

This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3296cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_14This teleforum features Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute, which filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents.
Featuring:
Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41461774Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum addresses the October 6, 2020, Supreme Court oral argument in FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir, which involves the sole question of whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C § 2000bb et seq., permits suits seeking...This teleforum features Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute, which filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents.
Featuring:
Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2472cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_13Featuring:
Anthony L. Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41461730Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs an act of original jusrisdiction, the Supreme Court appointed a river master to resolve a dispute between New Mexico and Texas over the Pecos River back in 1949. Over 70 years later, the actions of this river master are now in question. After a...Featuring:
Anthony L. Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3022cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supply-chain-security-and-global-power-cJoin a distinguished panel of experts, Joanne Medero, Daniel Ahn, and Bryan Smith, as we delve into whether searching the U.S. supply chain for opportunities to remove Chinese participation is beneficial to U.S. national security, and whether it is even possible. What complications will arise if the U.S. does so? Have recent attempts to remove some Chinese electronics manufacturers been successful? How do China's new Hong Kong Security Law, and the U.S.'s Hong Kong Autonomy Act enacted in response, impact the relevant financial and trade landscapes? And what antitrust or other collateral issues will need to be considered if the United States moves further to remove Chinese participation in our supply chain?
Featuring:
Daniel Ahn, Managing Director, Chief US Economist and Head of Macro Strategy, BNP Paribas
Joanne Medero, formerly Managing Director, BlackRock, Inc.
Bryan Smith, Senior Fellow, George Mason University National Security Institute
Moderator: W. Hartmann Young, Senior Counsel - Government Business, GE Aviation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41461843Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent events have demonstrated how dependent on China the United States has become for critical needs. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the supply chain vulnerabilities that exist for antibiotics, personal protective equipment (PPE)...Join a distinguished panel of experts, Joanne Medero, Daniel Ahn, and Bryan Smith, as we delve into whether searching the U.S. supply chain for opportunities to remove Chinese participation is beneficial to U.S. national security, and whether it is even possible. What complications will arise if the U.S. does so? Have recent attempts to remove some Chinese electronics manufacturers been successful? How do China's new Hong Kong Security Law, and the U.S.'s Hong Kong Autonomy Act enacted in response, impact the relevant financial and trade landscapes? And what antitrust or other collateral issues will need to be considered if the United States moves further to remove Chinese participation in our supply chain?
Featuring:
Daniel Ahn, Managing Director, Chief US Economist and Head of Macro Strategy, BNP Paribas
Joanne Medero, formerly Managing Director, BlackRock, Inc.
Bryan Smith, Senior Fellow, George Mason University National Security Institute
Moderator: W. Hartmann Young, Senior Counsel - Government Business, GE Aviation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3945cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/appointments-clause-back-in-the-supreme-All parties have sought certiorari. The government argues that there was no Appointments Clause violation at all, and regardless that no remands were required. The patent owner argues that the Federal Circuit did not go far enough, and that there is no remedy for the purported Appointments Clause violation here. And some are of the view that the Federal Circuit got it just right. As the Supreme Court turns to its October 2020 Term, it will decide whether to take up this issue, following on decisions such as Lucia v. SEC and Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius.
The stakes are high. Left unaltered, the Federal Circuit’s decision will lead to do-overs for potentially hundreds of invalidated patents. And if the patent owners’ arguments were to prevail, it would potentially bring down the entire statutory regime for Patent Office review (or at least re-review) of patentability decisions -- affecting hundreds of patents (and ultimately patent cases) each year.
John O’Quinn, a frequent Federal Circuit practitioner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington D.C., will introduce the topic and its implications for patent practice, and Professor Aditya Bamzai, an expert on the Appointments Clause from the University of Virginia Law School, will discuss the constitutional issues presented by the case
Featuring:
John O'Quinn, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41383076Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEleven months ago the Federal Circuit held that the Administrative Patent Judges who serve on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, were unconstitutionally appointed because they act as “principal officers” within the meaning of the...All parties have sought certiorari. The government argues that there was no Appointments Clause violation at all, and regardless that no remands were required. The patent owner argues that the Federal Circuit did not go far enough, and that there is no remedy for the purported Appointments Clause violation here. And some are of the view that the Federal Circuit got it just right. As the Supreme Court turns to its October 2020 Term, it will decide whether to take up this issue, following on decisions such as Lucia v. SEC and Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius.
The stakes are high. Left unaltered, the Federal Circuit’s decision will lead to do-overs for potentially hundreds of invalidated patents. And if the patent owners’ arguments were to prevail, it would potentially bring down the entire statutory regime for Patent Office review (or at least re-review) of patentability decisions -- affecting hundreds of patents (and ultimately patent cases) each year.
John O’Quinn, a frequent Federal Circuit practitioner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington D.C., will introduce the topic and its implications for patent practice, and Professor Aditya Bamzai, an expert on the Appointments Clause from the University of Virginia Law School, will discuss the constitutional issues presented by the case
Featuring:
John O'Quinn, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law]]>3426cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-arguments-teleforu
Featuring:
-- Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41383100Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Delaware, there is a state constitutional provision that requires the state's three highest courts to have no more than a "bare majority" of judges to be affiliated with either major political party. James Adams, a Delaware resident and member of...
Featuring:
-- Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>2829cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-united-nurses-and-alliMr. Taubman will also discuss the significant procedural twists and turns this case took before reaching the First Circuit, as it was the subject of two mandamus petitions in the D.C. Circuit, one challenging the power of President Obama’s NLRB recess appointees to act in the years before Noel Canning was decided, and a second one challenging the NLRB’s inordinate delay in deciding the case once a valid complement of Board members was confirmed by the Senate.
Featuring:
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, The National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41363872Thu, 08 Oct 2020 14:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Judges Kayatta, Selya and retired Justice Souter) ruled on September 15 that the National Labor Relations Board was correct as a matter of law in holding that private sector unions may never charge...Mr. Taubman will also discuss the significant procedural twists and turns this case took before reaching the First Circuit, as it was the subject of two mandamus petitions in the D.C. Circuit, one challenging the power of President Obama’s NLRB recess appointees to act in the years before Noel Canning was decided, and a second one challenging the NLRB’s inordinate delay in deciding the case once a valid complement of Board members was confirmed by the Senate.
Featuring:
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, The National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3012cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/challenging-michigan-executive-orders-re
Featuring:
-- Patrick J. Wright, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Mackinac Center for Public Policy]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41363456Thu, 08 Oct 2020 13:57:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC v. Whitmer concerns the state-law claims (brought to the Michigan Supreme Court through the certified-question process from federal court) made in challenge to all of Michigan Governor Whitmer’s Executive...
Featuring:
-- Patrick J. Wright, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Mackinac Center for Public Policy]]>2544cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/religious-liberty-at-the-supreme-court-p
Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund joins us to preview the Fulton case, discuss other religious-liberty cases the Court will hear this year, and analyze the future of religious liberty at the Supreme Court. Professor William Saunders from The Catholic University of America will moderate the conversation.


To listen to Professors Rienzi and Saunders discuss last term's religious liberty cases, see Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court: The 2020 Term and Beyond.


Featuring:

Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic UniversityModerator: William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology; Chairman, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group


This call is open to the public and press. Please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41363416Thu, 08 Oct 2020 13:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court's most recent term ended with several high-profile liberty rulings, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. This term, set to begin next month, will bring more religious...
Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund joins us to preview the Fulton case, discuss other religious-liberty cases the Court will hear this year, and analyze the future of religious liberty at the Supreme Court. Professor William Saunders from The Catholic University of America will moderate the conversation.


To listen to Professors Rienzi and Saunders discuss last term's religious liberty cases, see Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court: The 2020 Term and Beyond.


Featuring:

Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic UniversityModerator: William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology; Chairman, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group


This call is open to the public and press. Please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3218cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/usmca-in-practice-what-it-means-for-the-
Featuring:
-- Amb. Jeffrey Davidow, Senior Counselor, The Cohen Group, and former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
-- Ana Rosa Quintana, Senior Policy Analyst, Latin America and the Western Hemisphere, The Heritage Foundation
-- Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Associate, DLA Piper]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41363767Thu, 08 Oct 2020 10:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) entered into force in the United States on July 1, 2020, and is expected to significantly affect the trade relationship between the United States and Mexico. How successful will it be for either...
Featuring:
-- Amb. Jeffrey Davidow, Senior Counselor, The Cohen Group, and former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
-- Ana Rosa Quintana, Senior Policy Analyst, Latin America and the Western Hemisphere, The Heritage Foundation
-- Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Associate, DLA Piper]]>3618cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/adjudicating-employment-discrimination-i
At other times the Executive Branch has sought to alter this balance on its own, but concern is growing about whether federal courts will effectively constrain federal regulations that lack any statutory basis. This teleforum will consider the aforementioned concern in the context of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). This relatively obscure federal agency exercises broad enforcement powers to monitor the employment practices of federal contractors and subcontractors. OFCCP often has sought to impose controversial and expansive theories of employment discrimination - sometimes including theories rejected by the Department of Justice - through a regulatory framework that is practically unchecked by federal courts. Unlike other Dept. of Labor enforcement programs (e.g., OSHA), there are few federal court decisions involving the merits of OFCCP enforcement actions against federal contractors. The teleforum will address why this is so.

Our OFCCP discussion will also focus on the statutory authority (or lack thereof) for several of the agency's regulatory policies in contrast to federal court interpretations of Title VII. We will examine some particular examples of the statutory authority problem: (1) Congress never gave EEOC authority to issue regulations setting forth substantive discrimination standards with the force and effect of law under Title VII, but OFCCP has asserted that it has such authority under Executive Order 11246; (2) Congress mandated a 300-day statute of limitations for claims by both private plaintiffs and EEOC under Title VII, but OFCCP has asserted that its claims are not governed by any statute of limitations; and (3) Congress provided authority to OFCCP to adjudicate, e.g., veterans and rehabilitation act discrimination claims, but not some other discrimination claims that OFCCP nonetheless asserts the power to adjudicate.

Featuring:
-- Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- William Doyle, Jr., Partner, McGuireWoods]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41363616Thu, 08 Oct 2020 10:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the landmark Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress legislated a comprehensive scheme for eradicating employment discrimination in American workplaces. Title VII has been implemented by the federal courts in thousands of cases to...
At other times the Executive Branch has sought to alter this balance on its own, but concern is growing about whether federal courts will effectively constrain federal regulations that lack any statutory basis. This teleforum will consider the aforementioned concern in the context of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). This relatively obscure federal agency exercises broad enforcement powers to monitor the employment practices of federal contractors and subcontractors. OFCCP often has sought to impose controversial and expansive theories of employment discrimination - sometimes including theories rejected by the Department of Justice - through a regulatory framework that is practically unchecked by federal courts. Unlike other Dept. of Labor enforcement programs (e.g., OSHA), there are few federal court decisions involving the merits of OFCCP enforcement actions against federal contractors. The teleforum will address why this is so.

Our OFCCP discussion will also focus on the statutory authority (or lack thereof) for several of the agency's regulatory policies in contrast to federal court interpretations of Title VII. We will examine some particular examples of the statutory authority problem: (1) Congress never gave EEOC authority to issue regulations setting forth substantive discrimination standards with the force and effect of law under Title VII, but OFCCP has asserted that it has such authority under Executive Order 11246; (2) Congress mandated a 300-day statute of limitations for claims by both private plaintiffs and EEOC under Title VII, but OFCCP has asserted that its claims are not governed by any statute of limitations; and (3) Congress provided authority to OFCCP to adjudicate, e.g., veterans and rehabilitation act discrimination claims, but not some other discrimination claims that OFCCP nonetheless asserts the power to adjudicate.

Featuring:
-- Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- William Doyle, Jr., Partner, McGuireWoods]]>3578cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/race-and-policing
Copland will also discuss his newly-released book, The Unelected: How an Unaccountable Elite is Governing America.

Featuring:
-- James R. Copland, Senior Fellow and Director, Legal Policy, Manhattan Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41363522Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:45:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this teleforum, James R. Copland will discuss competing legislative proposals in Congress, in the context of a complex phenomenon. In Copland's view, the evidence is clear that black men both disproportionately benefit from policing and...
Copland will also discuss his newly-released book, The Unelected: How an Unaccountable Elite is Governing America.

Featuring:
-- James R. Copland, Senior Fellow and Director, Legal Policy, Manhattan Institute]]>3656cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/patent-litigation-in-the-western-distric
Please join us for a conversation expected to cover Judge Albright's approach to patent cases; a unique brand of local patent rules; innovative advisory council group on rules; goals for the rules and how they work in daily practice; and a discussion regarding how new patent procedures evolve to meet the needs of a rapidly growing patent litigation docket.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Alan D. Albright, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
-- Arthur Gollwitzer III, Partner, Michael Best
-- Introductions: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41363307Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group will host a conversation with the Hon. Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas and Art Gollwitzer III, an attorney with Michael Best in Austin, TX. The speakers will be introduced...
Please join us for a conversation expected to cover Judge Albright's approach to patent cases; a unique brand of local patent rules; innovative advisory council group on rules; goals for the rules and how they work in daily practice; and a discussion regarding how new patent procedures evolve to meet the needs of a rapidly growing patent litigation docket.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Alan D. Albright, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
-- Arthur Gollwitzer III, Partner, Michael Best
-- Introductions: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims]]>3751cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-supreme-disorder-judicial-no
Featuring:
-- Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute and Author, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court
-- Joseph Tartakovsky, Author of The Lives of the Constitution: Ten Exceptional Minds that Shaped America's Supreme Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41243804Thu, 01 Oct 2020 10:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe brutal confirmation battles we saw over Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are symptoms of a larger problem with our third branch of government, a problem that began long before Kavanaugh, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas, or...
Featuring:
-- Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute and Author, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court
-- Joseph Tartakovsky, Author of The Lives of the Constitution: Ten Exceptional Minds that Shaped America's Supreme Law]]>3593cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/mass-arbitrations-challenges-benefits-an
Featuring:
-- Allen Waxman, President & CEO, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR)
-- David E. Gottlieb, Partner, Wigdor LLP
-- Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41243867Thu, 01 Oct 2020 10:03:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Supreme Court confirmed that federal law permits employers to include class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. In the wake of that decision, employers have increasingly adopted arbitration programs...
Featuring:
-- Allen Waxman, President & CEO, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR)
-- David E. Gottlieb, Partner, Wigdor LLP
-- Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.]]>2645cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/evaluating-the-epa-s-proposals-to-retain
Featuring:
-- Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
-- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC
-- Moderator: Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41243693Thu, 01 Oct 2020 10:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed retaining both the existing particulate matter and ozone primary and secondary standards. Over the last several decades, air quality in the United States has improved dramatically. Though many...
Featuring:
-- Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
-- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC
-- Moderator: Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation]]>3546cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-law-and-economics-of-municipal-broad
While the debate over the merits of municipal broadband is nothing new, what has been missing from the debate over the years is a cohesive legal and economic analysis to frame the discussion. A new 100-page study recently published in the Federal Communications Law Journal attempts to fill that gap. To explore this important topic in detail, we will be joined in this teleforum by two of the authors of this new study to discuss their findings.

Featuring:
-- Dr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
-- Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies and member of the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Executive Committee
-- Moderator: Danielle K. Thumann, Associate, Wilkinson Barker Knauer and member of the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Executive Committee]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/41061981Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:42:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyNow six months into the COVID pandemic, the Internet has offered Americans a welcome economic, educational and sometimes even psychological lifeline to weather the crisis. Given Americans’ increased reliance on broadband, politicians on both sides of...
While the debate over the merits of municipal broadband is nothing new, what has been missing from the debate over the years is a cohesive legal and economic analysis to frame the discussion. A new 100-page study recently published in the Federal Communications Law Journal attempts to fill that gap. To explore this important topic in detail, we will be joined in this teleforum by two of the authors of this new study to discuss their findings.

Featuring:
-- Dr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
-- Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies and member of the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Executive Committee
-- Moderator: Danielle K. Thumann, Associate, Wilkinson Barker Knauer and member of the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Executive Committee]]>3558cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/rights-and-wrongs-the-golden-state-kille
How does this technology work? Are privacy rights at risk? Should there be limits on this new field of DNA forensics as it pertains to criminal investigations? Reflecting the contentious nature of the topic, there are differing answers to all of these questions from public defenders and prosecutors alike. Join us for a thoughtful discussion as we explore the case of the Golden State Killer and the evolving legal landscape of open-source genetic forensics.

Featuring:
-- Arthur Rizer, Resident Senior Fellow and Director of Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties, R Street Institute
-- Nila Bala, Resident Senior Fellow and Associate Director of Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties, R Street Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40930831Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:41:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyAfter 87 victims, 53 separate crime scenes, and multiple investigations spanning over four decades, the Golden State Killer was finally brought to justice this past August when he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The...
How does this technology work? Are privacy rights at risk? Should there be limits on this new field of DNA forensics as it pertains to criminal investigations? Reflecting the contentious nature of the topic, there are differing answers to all of these questions from public defenders and prosecutors alike. Join us for a thoughtful discussion as we explore the case of the Golden State Killer and the evolving legal landscape of open-source genetic forensics.

Featuring:
-- Arthur Rizer, Resident Senior Fellow and Director of Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties, R Street Institute
-- Nila Bala, Resident Senior Fellow and Associate Director of Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties, R Street Institute]]>3650criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/special-topics-in-religious-liberty-seri_1
Please join the lawyers of Jones Day for a second part of the Teleforum call that will discuss significant developments in state court litigation involving religious organizations and will provide an update on recent reorganizations and bankruptcy filings.

Featuring:
-- Corinne Ball, Partner, Jones Day
-- Todd Geremia, Partner, Jones Day
-- John Goetz, Partner, Jones Day]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40898185Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:34:17 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the last year, many states had seen a new wave of lawsuits against religious organizations based on alleged sexual abuse from decades ago. New York’s Child Victims Act, which revived previously-time barred claims and at first opened a one-year...
Please join the lawyers of Jones Day for a second part of the Teleforum call that will discuss significant developments in state court litigation involving religious organizations and will provide an update on recent reorganizations and bankruptcy filings.

Featuring:
-- Corinne Ball, Partner, Jones Day
-- Todd Geremia, Partner, Jones Day
-- John Goetz, Partner, Jones Day]]>3265cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/iran-turns-east-with-china-partnership-s
Whether or not sanctions against Iran are renewed, how will the United Nations or the United States respond to an Iran-China arms deal? Will the lessons learned by countries that have entered into Belt and Road Initiatives be instructive as new agreements are forged? What should the West’s response be and what is the range of options?

Featuring:
-- Hon. Dov S. Zakheim, Senior Fellow, CNA
-- Brigadier General (Res.) Prof. Jacob Nagel, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
-- Bryan Smith, Senior Fellow, George Mason University National Security Institute
-- Moderator: Matthew R.A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40897862Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:07:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs the United Arab Emirates and Israel agreed to establish diplomatic ties, Iran and China’s 25-year, $400 billion deal lurks in the background. The nearly finalized Iran-China Deal provides potential for equal or greater regional consequence. Iran,...
Whether or not sanctions against Iran are renewed, how will the United Nations or the United States respond to an Iran-China arms deal? Will the lessons learned by countries that have entered into Belt and Road Initiatives be instructive as new agreements are forged? What should the West’s response be and what is the range of options?

Featuring:
-- Hon. Dov S. Zakheim, Senior Fellow, CNA
-- Brigadier General (Res.) Prof. Jacob Nagel, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
-- Bryan Smith, Senior Fellow, George Mason University National Security Institute
-- Moderator: Matthew R.A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health]]>3572cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-false-claims-act-the-cares-act-and-c
This teleforum will provide an update on the DOJ’s False Claims Act enforcement priorities to date, and discuss potential trends and activity that could emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and related stimulus spending.

Featuring:
-- John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40654576Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:53:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe False Claims Act, which imposes civil and criminal liability on those who submit false claims for payment to the federal government, serves as a primary tool in the federal government’s enforcement arsenal. At the same time, the global COVID-19...
This teleforum will provide an update on the DOJ’s False Claims Act enforcement priorities to date, and discuss potential trends and activity that could emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and related stimulus spending.

Featuring:
-- John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>3449cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/special-topics-in-religious-liberty-seri
Featuring:
-- Victoria Dorfman, Partner, Jones Day
-- Anthony Dick, Partner, Jones Day
-- David Raimer, Partner, Jones Day]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40654476Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:47:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the 2019 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three decisions with major implications for religious organizations, addressing such issues as access to government programs, conscience exemptions in health-care plans, and the ministerial exemption in...
Featuring:
-- Victoria Dorfman, Partner, Jones Day
-- Anthony Dick, Partner, Jones Day
-- David Raimer, Partner, Jones Day]]>3507cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-desrosiers-et-al-v-gov
This case presents foundational due process questions. A hearing, which will take place on September 11, will ask the Supreme Judicial Court to declare that the Civil Defense Act does not confer any authority upon the Governor during a pandemic and to declare his orders null and void. This ruling would permit local boards of health to establish strategies befitting their communities.

Featuring:
-- Michael DeGrandis, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40634294Tue, 01 Sep 2020 13:23:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will soon hear a lawsuit on accelerated consideration brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance that aims to restore constitutional governance to the Commonwealth. The suit seeks to overturn the Civil Defense...
This case presents foundational due process questions. A hearing, which will take place on September 11, will ask the Supreme Judicial Court to declare that the Civil Defense Act does not confer any authority upon the Governor during a pandemic and to declare his orders null and void. This ruling would permit local boards of health to establish strategies befitting their communities.

Featuring:
-- Michael DeGrandis, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>2119cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/free-speech-in-the-digital-era-section-2
In May, President Trump issued an Executive Order that directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposing regulations to clarify the scope of Section 230. The FCC is currently soliciting public comment on the NTIA petition, which was filed on July 27.

During this teleforum, panelists will discuss the background of Section 230. They will reflect on whether Section 230 continues to encourage innovation and free speech online, or whether changes are needed. What should the FCC do to address the pending NTIA petition? And, in light of the upcoming elections, what are the political dynamics at play—at the FCC, in Congress, and in the White House?

Featuring:
-- Hon. Adam Candeub, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
-- Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law
-- Ashkhen Kazaryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedom
-- Jon Adame, General Counsel, Office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn
-- Moderator: Jamie Susskind, Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Technology Association]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40634256Tue, 01 Sep 2020 13:19:20 +0000The Federalist SocietySection 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides liability protection to platforms, internet service providers, and other online intermediaries for third-party content they host or republish. It also provides liability protections for actions...
In May, President Trump issued an Executive Order that directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposing regulations to clarify the scope of Section 230. The FCC is currently soliciting public comment on the NTIA petition, which was filed on July 27.

During this teleforum, panelists will discuss the background of Section 230. They will reflect on whether Section 230 continues to encourage innovation and free speech online, or whether changes are needed. What should the FCC do to address the pending NTIA petition? And, in light of the upcoming elections, what are the political dynamics at play—at the FCC, in Congress, and in the White House?

Featuring:
-- Hon. Adam Candeub, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
-- Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law
-- Ashkhen Kazaryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedom
-- Jon Adame, General Counsel, Office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn
-- Moderator: Jamie Susskind, Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Technology Association]]>3454cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/home-economics-real-estate-exchanges-and
Featuring:
-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
-- Michael Toth, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Special Counsel, REX]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40541825Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:06:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Richard Epstein and Michael Toth discuss how digital innovation is changing the way U.S. consumers buy and sell homes. Amid a V shaped recovery in housing, that has led to a surge in mobility and home prices across the U.S., Epstein and...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
-- Michael Toth, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Special Counsel, REX]]>3712cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ftc-v-qualcomm-the-ninth-circuit-on-tech
John Shu, a professor, attorney, and legal commentator, will discuss the ruling and examine the history, arguments, and ramifications of the case.

Featuring:
-- Mr. John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40541801Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:03:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join us for a teleforum discussing the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in this important case, which reversed the Federal Trade Commission's 2019 trial court win. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Qualcomm did not violate antitrust law through its...
John Shu, a professor, attorney, and legal commentator, will discuss the ruling and examine the history, arguments, and ramifications of the case.

Featuring:
-- Mr. John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator]]>2906cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/retooling-energy-regulations-who-decides
Featuring:
-- Anthony T. Clark, Senior Advisor at Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP and former FERC Commissioner
-- Travis Kavulla, Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at NRG Energy and former commissioner at the Montana Public Service Commission
-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40474254Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:43:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 16, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) revised its regulations governing qualifying small power producers and cogenerators under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). PURPA was designed to reduce demand...
Featuring:
-- Anthony T. Clark, Senior Advisor at Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP and former FERC Commissioner
-- Travis Kavulla, Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at NRG Energy and former commissioner at the Montana Public Service Commission
-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice]]>3557cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-and-religious-matters
Outside of church, too, religious citizens have faced unique challenges. For example, Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian humanitarian organization, was asked to remove the field hospital it set up in New York City because of its leader’s views on same-sex marriage and other social issues. And now, as California public schools announce they will not be re-opening for in-person classes in the fall, religious schools in the state are being told they may not open either, even though many of these schools are much smaller than public schools.

These circumstances have raised a host of legal and constitutional questions regarding how religion is treated and how it should be treated. What are the limits of religious liberty during a public-health emergency, and what powers do government officials have to regulate religious exercise? In what cases, if any, can government prefer religion and when, if ever, is it required to discriminate against religion? Law professors Rick Garnett and Bill Marshall join us to discuss the legal and constitutional issues involved in these evolving matters and more.

Featuring:
-- Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl / Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
-- William Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40324289Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe COVID-19 pandemic has upended Americans’ daily lives. What one day people took for granted, like going to church, was the next day potentially deadly and prohibited by law. In response to the pandemic, state and local officials ordered entities...
Outside of church, too, religious citizens have faced unique challenges. For example, Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian humanitarian organization, was asked to remove the field hospital it set up in New York City because of its leader’s views on same-sex marriage and other social issues. And now, as California public schools announce they will not be re-opening for in-person classes in the fall, religious schools in the state are being told they may not open either, even though many of these schools are much smaller than public schools.

These circumstances have raised a host of legal and constitutional questions regarding how religion is treated and how it should be treated. What are the limits of religious liberty during a public-health emergency, and what powers do government officials have to regulate religious exercise? In what cases, if any, can government prefer religion and when, if ever, is it required to discriminate against religion? Law professors Rick Garnett and Bill Marshall join us to discuss the legal and constitutional issues involved in these evolving matters and more.

Featuring:
-- Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl / Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
-- William Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law]]>3667cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/corpus-linguistics-in-legal-interpretati
Featuring:
-- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless
-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40284558Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:19:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyCorpus linguistics has recently emerged as a method for addressing problems in legal interpretation. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural language, that can be designed to sample...
Featuring:
-- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless
-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University]]>3604cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/voter-fraud-and-voter-registration
Are the various requirements of the National Voter Registration Act being followed? Does the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased calls for vote by mail, provide an opening to transform the way America conducts elections? Does the presence of ineligible registrants on voter rolls open the door for improperly cast votes?


Featuring:
-- Linda A. Kerns, Attorney, Law Offices of Linda A. Kerns, LLC
-- J. Christian Adams, General Counsel, Election Law Center, Public Interest Legal Foundation
-- Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, Vote at Home, and Author of When Women Vote
-- Charles Stewart III, Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40284518Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:16:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyCongress enacted the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”) to reform elections. Among other things, NVRA specifically provides the right to the public to inspect and copy state voting records. Section 8 of the NVRA requires election...
Are the various requirements of the National Voter Registration Act being followed? Does the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased calls for vote by mail, provide an opening to transform the way America conducts elections? Does the presence of ineligible registrants on voter rolls open the door for improperly cast votes?


Featuring:
-- Linda A. Kerns, Attorney, Law Offices of Linda A. Kerns, LLC
-- J. Christian Adams, General Counsel, Election Law Center, Public Interest Legal Foundation
-- Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, Vote at Home, and Author of When Women Vote
-- Charles Stewart III, Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]>3409cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-commission-on-unalienable-rights-rep
Professor Robert P. George joins us to discuss the Commission’s work, the traditions on which the commissioners drew, and the challenges to human rights today. Professor William Saunders will moderate the conversation.

Featuring:
-- Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions
-- William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America and Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40174403Thu, 06 Aug 2020 19:27:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights was formed in July 2019 to advise the Secretary of State on human rights and their relationship to American foreign policy. The Commission, chaired by Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon and...
Professor Robert P. George joins us to discuss the Commission’s work, the traditions on which the commissioners drew, and the challenges to human rights today. Professor William Saunders will moderate the conversation.

Featuring:
-- Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions
-- William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America and Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology]]>3650cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/minutes-to-midnight-or-teeing-up-a-secon
What actions should we expect agencies to take? To what extent can the current administration issue “midnight rules” affecting policy beyond January 20? And to what extent could the Congressional Review Act permanently erase those rules?

To discuss these questions, we will be joined by three experts on administrative law and the administrative state:
-- Mr. Daniel R. Pérez, Senior Policy Analyst, GW Regulatory Studies Center
-- Prof. Jack Beerman, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law School
-- Moderator: Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40157622Wed, 05 Aug 2020 18:55:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe next presidential inauguration will be on January 20, 2021. The six months between then and today will involve a flurry of regulatory activity, just as the final months of presidential terms always do. Whether the next inauguration features Donald...
What actions should we expect agencies to take? To what extent can the current administration issue “midnight rules” affecting policy beyond January 20? And to what extent could the Congressional Review Act permanently erase those rules?

To discuss these questions, we will be joined by three experts on administrative law and the administrative state:
-- Mr. Daniel R. Pérez, Senior Policy Analyst, GW Regulatory Studies Center
-- Prof. Jack Beerman, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law School
-- Moderator: Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University]]>2871cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-covid-19-and-fda-m
Featuring:
-- Stacy Amin, Chief Counsel, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Deputy General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services
-- Anand Shah, MD, Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
-- Moderator: Stephen J. Cox, 39th United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40127326Mon, 03 Aug 2020 16:51:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sought to exercise regulatory flexibilities where possible to expedite the development of timely medical products and ensure the safety of consumers. As the...
Featuring:
-- Stacy Amin, Chief Counsel, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Deputy General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services
-- Anand Shah, MD, Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
-- Moderator: Stephen J. Cox, 39th United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas]]>3369cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-labor-and-employment-teleforum-_1
Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
-- Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40127257Mon, 03 Aug 2020 16:47:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyEmployers are increasingly being faced with difficult issues with respect to COVID-19, including challenging labor and employment issues. Various federal and state statutes present compliance issues for employers, particularly given the recent...
Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
-- Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC]]>3571cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-u-s-and-the-world-trade-organization
Featuring:
-- Stephen Vaughn, Partner in the International Trade Team of King & Spalding, former General Counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and acting U.S. Trade Representative.
-- Moderator: Daniel Pickard, Partner in the International Trade practice and Co-Chair of the National Security practice, Wiley Rein LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40127200Mon, 03 Aug 2020 16:42:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe World Trade Organization (WTO) was intended to be the principal forum for setting the rules of international trade and for the resolution of international trade disputes. The United States has expressed its concern with the WTO’s dispute...
Featuring:
-- Stephen Vaughn, Partner in the International Trade Team of King & Spalding, former General Counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and acting U.S. Trade Representative.
-- Moderator: Daniel Pickard, Partner in the International Trade practice and Co-Chair of the National Security practice, Wiley Rein LLP]]>2763cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-true-extent-of-executive-powerFeaturing:
Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40074557Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this Teleforum, two of the nation’s leading scholars of presidential power — and former office mates — debate whether Trump’s aggressive fight for presidential power goes beyond the Founders’ original designs. In his...Featuring:
Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3720cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/arizona-covid-litigation-a-challenge-to-Featuring:
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40059528Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis month, more than 50 bar owners across Arizona filed a special action challenging Governor Ducey's executive order (calling for a 'pause' in operations of bars and some other businesses) directly in the Arizona Supreme Court. The petitioners claim...Featuring:
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3150cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/40-years-later-nepa-regulation-update
Featuring:
-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40022719Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:08:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 16, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality published the long-awaited revision to its regulation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a final rule (85 Fed. Reg. 43304). NEPA requires agencies to study the...
Featuring:
-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>3511cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/religious-liberty-at-the-supreme-court-tMark Rienzi of the Becket Fund joins us to discuss these cases, preview the Supreme Court's fall term, and analyze the future of religious liberty at the Supreme Court. Professor William Saunders from The Catholic University of America will moderate the conversation.
Featuring:
Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40015608Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis summer, the Supreme Court decided several high-profile religious liberty cases. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court held that religious schools cannot be excluded from generally-available funding programs on the basis of their...Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund joins us to discuss these cases, preview the Supreme Court's fall term, and analyze the future of religious liberty at the Supreme Court. Professor William Saunders from The Catholic University of America will moderate the conversation.
Featuring:
Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3448cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/international-criminal-justice
Featuring:
-- The Honorable Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Chief Justice of The Gambia, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
-- Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Human Rights Enforcement Policy and Strategy, Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Arthur Traldi, former war crimes prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and ICTR
-- Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Managing Director, Lexpat Global Services]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/40003651Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn May, French authorities arrested Felicien Kabuga after a 26-year manhunt for his alleged role in the Rwandan genocide. Kabuga was indicted before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on seven counts of genocide, conspiracy, and related...
Featuring:
-- The Honorable Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Chief Justice of The Gambia, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
-- Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Human Rights Enforcement Policy and Strategy, Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Arthur Traldi, former war crimes prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and ICTR
-- Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Managing Director, Lexpat Global Services]]>3498cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/federalization-of-elections
Our system leaves the details of the election administration to the individual states.  Those details include the specifics of election day rules such as the time for opening and closing polling places, absentee ballot procedures (including emergency absentee balloting), early voting, registering to vote, and the regulation and prosecution of election irregularities and election crimes.  Accordingly, election procedures can vary widely from state to state and even, in some cases, within a state if local jurisdictions develop their own idiosyncratic policies and procedures.  

This panel will discuss the roles played by federal, state and local governments in elections as defined by the U.S. Constitutions, whether and how those roles have evolved in recent decades, and whether and how those roles could change in certain circumstances, including the COVID-19 era. 

Featuring:
-- Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
-- Hon. Matthew S. Petersen, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39920218Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:40:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe United States, a constitutional republic, employs a decentralized election regulation system with decision making authority over policies and procedures spread among local, state and federal authorities.  The Constitution provides some authority...
Our system leaves the details of the election administration to the individual states.  Those details include the specifics of election day rules such as the time for opening and closing polling places, absentee ballot procedures (including emergency absentee balloting), early voting, registering to vote, and the regulation and prosecution of election irregularities and election crimes.  Accordingly, election procedures can vary widely from state to state and even, in some cases, within a state if local jurisdictions develop their own idiosyncratic policies and procedures.  

This panel will discuss the roles played by federal, state and local governments in elections as defined by the U.S. Constitutions, whether and how those roles have evolved in recent decades, and whether and how those roles could change in certain circumstances, including the COVID-19 era. 

Featuring:
-- Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
-- Hon. Matthew S. Petersen, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC]]>3603cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/police-unions-practically-speaking
Featuring:
-- Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe, Brown & James LLP
-- Prof. Daniel DiSalvo, Professor and Chair of Political Science, The City College of New York]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39921671Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the current scholarship surrounding law enforcement issues, there are two diverging sides in which some advocate for major reform and others advocate for a continuation of the status quo across major police departments in the United States....
Featuring:
-- Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe, Brown & James LLP
-- Prof. Daniel DiSalvo, Professor and Chair of Political Science, The City College of New York]]>3439cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-united-states-Featuring:
Mr. Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law

This call is open to the public, please dial 888-752-3232 at 2:00 p.m. ET to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39921645Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the lower court, which found that “Booking.com” is not a generic term...Featuring:
Mr. Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law

This call is open to the public, please dial 888-752-3232 at 2:00 p.m. ET to access the call.]]>2115cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/new-labor-department-rule-taking-on-esg-
The U.S. Department of Labor is preparing to ensure ESG investing does not undermine protections enshrined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). A proposed rule would codify in law that asset managers must uphold their fiduciary responsibility when considering ESG investment decisions. The rule states: “It is unlawful for a fiduciary to sacrifice return or accept additional risk to promote a public policy, political, or any other nonpecuniary goal.” A comment period ends on July 30.

At this teleforum George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Professor JW Verret will discuss the Labor Department’s proposed rules and the implications for retirement security. Verret serves on the Investor Advisory Committee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he advises the Chairman of the SEC on legal and policy reform.

Featuring:
-- Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39868635Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:03:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyA sustained effort by activist investors to align corporate policy and investing with a progressive policy agenda could be shortchanging the retirement savings of millions of Americans. Data shows that investments tied to perceived environmental,...
The U.S. Department of Labor is preparing to ensure ESG investing does not undermine protections enshrined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). A proposed rule would codify in law that asset managers must uphold their fiduciary responsibility when considering ESG investment decisions. The rule states: “It is unlawful for a fiduciary to sacrifice return or accept additional risk to promote a public policy, political, or any other nonpecuniary goal.” A comment period ends on July 30.

At this teleforum George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Professor JW Verret will discuss the Labor Department’s proposed rules and the implications for retirement security. Verret serves on the Investor Advisory Committee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he advises the Chairman of the SEC on legal and policy reform.

Featuring:
-- Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>2884cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/innovation-in-diagnostics-and-patent-sub
Featuring:
-- Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
-- Hon. David J. Kappos, Partner, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
-- Prof. David O. Taylor, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, Associate Professor of Law, Co-Director, Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation
-- Moderator: Mr. Andrew F. Halaby, Partner, Snell & Wilmer]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39868603Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will focus on patent subject matter eligibility issues highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly as they relate to patentability of medical diagnostic tests. The panel will provide a brief review of Section 101 case law,...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
-- Hon. David J. Kappos, Partner, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
-- Prof. David O. Taylor, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, Associate Professor of Law, Co-Director, Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation
-- Moderator: Mr. Andrew F. Halaby, Partner, Snell & Wilmer]]>3496cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-labor-and-employment-teleforum-
Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39868355Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:00:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyEmployers are increasingly being faced with difficult issues with respect to COVID-19, including challenging labor and employment issues. Various federal and state statutes present compliance issues for employers, particularly given the recent...
Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>3188cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-business-closures-firearms-deal
As jurisdictions continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, many are poised to issue similar business closure orders and will face the decision whether those closures should apply to gun-related businesses. This teleforum call will address the potential Second Amendment implications of these exercises of emergency executive power.

Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39813869Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:03:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs the United States faces the spread of COVID-19, officials in many jurisdictions have ordered the closure of "non-essential" or "non-life-sustaining" businesses. These shut-down orders have differed, including in their treatment of gun dealers,...
As jurisdictions continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, many are poised to issue similar business closure orders and will face the decision whether those closures should apply to gun-related businesses. This teleforum call will address the potential Second Amendment implications of these exercises of emergency executive power.

Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3310cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-department-of-
Featuring:
-- O.H. Skinner, Arizona Solicitor General]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39813902Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:16:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 25, Justice Alito, writing for a five justice majority of the Supreme Court, issued the opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, which is the Court's first Suspension Clause case in over a decade. The decision not only has...
Featuring:
-- O.H. Skinner, Arizona Solicitor General]]>1929cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/prosecuting-dictators-the-indictment-of-
Featuring:
-- Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University
-- Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
-- Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Associate, DLA Piper]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39813786Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:00:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Department of Justice recently announced indictments of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and several of his regime allies for drug trafficking and money laundering. This Teleforum will address the unique legal and political challenges...
Featuring:
-- Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University
-- Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
-- Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Associate, DLA Piper]]>3625cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-mcgirt-v-oklahFeaturing:
A.J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Andy Lester, Partner, Spencer Fane LLP
Prof. Taiawagi “Tai” Helton, W. DeVier Pierson Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39778677Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:00:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 9, the Supreme Court released its decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was reversed. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and...Featuring:
A.J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Andy Lester, Partner, Spencer Fane LLP
Prof. Taiawagi “Tai” Helton, W. DeVier Pierson Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3514cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-michael-r-pompeo-uhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/39472752Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society1627cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-problems-of-preservation-how-much-evAt common law, the duty attached only upon the filing of a suit (or when filing was imminent), and generally required only that parties not destroy evidence directly related to litigation. But today’s duty casts aside these originalist common-law pillars—the duty not only attaches earlier, but is broader in scope. What’s more, recent judge-made preservation obligations make obtaining spoliation sanctions far easier by removing the common-law requirement that the spoliator acted in bad faith. Such a broad duty and simple path to sanctions has led, predictably, to over-preservation, placing significant burdens on corporate litigants.
This teleforum dives into this topic, and will discuss whether courts have strayed too far from the historical common law, changing the traditional balance and equity in discovery.
Featuring:
Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Suzanne H. Clark, Discovery Counsel, eDiscovery CoCounsel, pllc
Robert Keeling, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39422990Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:00:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn today’s digital age, businesses create seemingly infinite quantities of data. And when the mere prospect of litigation looms, current rules require businesses to assume significant costs to store and maintain any data that might be relevant...At common law, the duty attached only upon the filing of a suit (or when filing was imminent), and generally required only that parties not destroy evidence directly related to litigation. But today’s duty casts aside these originalist common-law pillars—the duty not only attaches earlier, but is broader in scope. What’s more, recent judge-made preservation obligations make obtaining spoliation sanctions far easier by removing the common-law requirement that the spoliator acted in bad faith. Such a broad duty and simple path to sanctions has led, predictably, to over-preservation, placing significant burdens on corporate litigants.
This teleforum dives into this topic, and will discuss whether courts have strayed too far from the historical common law, changing the traditional balance and equity in discovery.
Featuring:
Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Suzanne H. Clark, Discovery Counsel, eDiscovery CoCounsel, pllc
Robert Keeling, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3307cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-trump-v-mazarsDevin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results in these cases and the implications on separation of powers and the future of the presidency.
Featuring:
Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

This call is open to the public and press. Please dial 888-752-3232 to access this call at 3:30 p.m. ET.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39421351Mon, 13 Jul 2020 14:30:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyMay grand juries or congressional oversight committees obtain the personal tax records and other financial information about the President, even from third parties? This is the question presented in Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance, two cases...Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results in these cases and the implications on separation of powers and the future of the presidency.
Featuring:
Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

This call is open to the public and press. Please dial 888-752-3232 to access this call at 3:30 p.m. ET.]]>2694cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-our-lady-of-guFeaturing:
Daniel Blomberg, Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/38339688Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:30:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn today's decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (together with St. James School v. Biel), the justices decided, by a vote of 7-2, that the judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are reversed and the cases...Featuring:
Daniel Blomberg, Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>2993cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-little-sisters
Featuring:
-- Eric N. Kniffin, Partner, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/38345518Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:00:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the justices upheld in a 7-2 ruling a federal rule exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. Eric...
Featuring:
-- Eric N. Kniffin, Partner, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP]]>2957cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-the-limits-of-Featuring:
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law

This call is open to the public; please dial 888-752-3232 at 12:00 noon to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/38061692Thu, 09 Jul 2020 16:00:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act that protected the public from certain kinds of robocalls to cell phones. In a badly split...Featuring:
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law

This call is open to the public; please dial 888-752-3232 at 12:00 noon to access the call.]]>2607cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-co-dept-of-staFeaturing:
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law

This call is open to the public and to the press. Please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/38015302Thu, 09 Jul 2020 13:05:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors. States may fine electors who vote for a candidate other than...Featuring:
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law

This call is open to the public and to the press. Please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>2642cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-the-dubious-morality-of-mode
Featuring:
-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
-- Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/38012380Thu, 09 Jul 2020 09:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyRichard Epstein’s The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law examines how the growth of the administrative state as a result of FDR’s New Deal has coincided with many different Supreme Court decisions since the 1936-37 term of the Court that...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
-- Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University]]>3566cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-espiFeaturing:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/37219492Tue, 07 Jul 2020 16:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana was reversed and the case remanded. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion was...Featuring:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2554cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-usaid-v-allianFeaturing:
Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute
Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/37094508Tue, 07 Jul 2020 13:30:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The...Featuring:
Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute
Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2469cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-juneFeaturing:
Steven H. Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel, Americans United for Life


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/36362322Mon, 06 Jul 2020 13:50:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its first major abortion decision on the merits since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement. The consolidated cases, June Medical Services v. Russo and Russo v. June Medical Services, involved the...Featuring:
Steven H. Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel, Americans United for Life


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3711cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-seilFeaturing:
John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/36361909Mon, 06 Jul 2020 13:30:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a...Featuring:
John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird]]>3610cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/executive-power-and-more
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/36362304Mon, 06 Jul 2020 09:45:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Malcolm and John Yoo continue their Teleforum series, joining us to discuss recent events including updates on the Michael Flynn case, the Supreme Court decision on DACA, recent unrest and free speech issues, and more. Featuring: -- John G....
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>3562cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-liu-Featuring:
Todd F. Braunstein, General Counsel - International, Willis Towers Watson

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/34920455Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:00:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, the Supreme Court released its decision in Liu v. SEC. By a vote of 8-1, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Justice Sotomayor's majority opinion was joined by all other members...Featuring:
Todd F. Braunstein, General Counsel - International, Willis Towers Watson

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1886cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-unit_1
Featuring:
-- Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
-- Stephen A. Vaden, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/34920677Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:02:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. By a vote of 7-2, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was reversed, and...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
-- Stephen A. Vaden, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture]]>3640cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/business-interruption-insurance-and-poli
Featuring:
-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/32632146Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:00:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe outbreak of COVID-19 led to the closing of thousands of businesses across the country. Some businesses that were closed by state and local governments are now seeking business interruption coverage as a result. There currently are two common...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law]]>3435cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-depaFeaturing:
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
William A. Stock, Partner , Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/32441023Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:02:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was...Featuring:
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
William A. Stock, Partner , Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3727cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-titlFeaturing:
Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/32441007Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:00:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyBy a vote of 6-3 in yesterday's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (combined with Altitude Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc.), the Supreme Court affirmed that the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh...Featuring:
Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3996cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-free-to-move-foot-voting-mig
People can vote with their feet through international migration, by choosing where to live within a federal system, and by making decisions in the private sector. These three types of foot voting are rarely considered together, but Somin explains how they have important common virtues and can be mutually reinforcing. He contends that all forms of foot voting should be expanded and shows how both domestic constitutions and international law can be structured to increase opportunities for foot voting while mitigating possible downsides.

Somin addresses a variety of common objections to expanded migration rights, including claims that the "self-determination" of natives requires giving them the power to exclude migrants, and arguments that migration is likely to have harmful side effects, such as undermining political institutions, overburdening the welfare state, and increasing crime and terrorism. While these objections are usually directed at international migration, Somin explains how, if taken seriously, they would also justify severe restrictions on domestic freedom of movement. By making a systematic case for a more open world, Free to Move challenges conventional wisdom on both the left and the right.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and Author, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom
-- Moderator: Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/31696169Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:00:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyBallot box voting is often considered the essence of political freedom. But it has two major shortcomings: individual voters have little chance of making a difference, and they also face strong incentives to remain ignorant about the issues at stake....
People can vote with their feet through international migration, by choosing where to live within a federal system, and by making decisions in the private sector. These three types of foot voting are rarely considered together, but Somin explains how they have important common virtues and can be mutually reinforcing. He contends that all forms of foot voting should be expanded and shows how both domestic constitutions and international law can be structured to increase opportunities for foot voting while mitigating possible downsides.

Somin addresses a variety of common objections to expanded migration rights, including claims that the "self-determination" of natives requires giving them the power to exclude migrants, and arguments that migration is likely to have harmful side effects, such as undermining political institutions, overburdening the welfare state, and increasing crime and terrorism. While these objections are usually directed at international migration, Somin explains how, if taken seriously, they would also justify severe restrictions on domestic freedom of movement. By making a systematic case for a more open world, Free to Move challenges conventional wisdom on both the left and the right.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and Author, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom
-- Moderator: Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law]]>3349cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/world-politics-after-brexit-a-conversati
Featuring:
-- Nigel Farage, Former Member of the European Parliament, South East England Constituency
-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/31136546Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:30:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyNigel Farage has been campaigning for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union since 1999, when he founded the UK Independence Party, which got more votes in the 2014 European elections than either the Labour or Conservative Parties. Farage then...
Featuring:
-- Nigel Farage, Former Member of the European Parliament, South East England Constituency
-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3471cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-and-suing-the-chinese-communist_1
Featuring:
-- Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project
-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School
-- Matthew T. Moore, Attorney, Berman Law Group
-- Tatiana Sainati, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/31696079Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:30:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe first lawsuit against the Chinese government seeking damages for personal and property injuries was filed in the Southern District of Florida by the Berman Law group. The lawsuit was later amended to add the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a...
Featuring:
-- Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project
-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School
-- Matthew T. Moore, Attorney, Berman Law Group
-- Tatiana Sainati, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>3477cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-antitrust-failing-firm-defense-in-th
Featuring:
-- Greg Eastman, Ph.D., Vice President, Cornerstone Research
-- George L. Paul, Partner, White & Case LLP
-- Moderator: Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case LLP, and former Counsel to the AAG of the DOJ Antitrust Division]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/30439093Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:00:55 +0000The Federalist SocietySince 1930, the Supreme Court has recognized a failing firm defense to an otherwise unlawful merger under the U.S. antitrust laws. The three-part test to prove a failing firm defense generally is met when the company sought to be acquired is in...
Featuring:
-- Greg Eastman, Ph.D., Vice President, Cornerstone Research
-- George L. Paul, Partner, White & Case LLP
-- Moderator: Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case LLP, and former Counsel to the AAG of the DOJ Antitrust Division]]>3330cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-marijuana-federalism-uncle-sFeaturing:
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/30294548Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:00:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyA majority of states have legalized the sale and possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Eleven states and the District of Columbia allow recreational use. Yet marijuana production, sale, and possession remain illegal under federal law. Is...Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3753cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/lightning-strikes-a-successful-appeal-in
Featuring:
-- Robert Keeling, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
-- Tim Pratt, Formerly General Counsel at Boston Scientific]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/30294589Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:02:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEarlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did something almost unheard of: it took an appeal from an order entered by an MDL judge and reversed it. The order came from the Opioid MDL in the Northern District of Ohio,...
Featuring:
-- Robert Keeling, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
-- Tim Pratt, Formerly General Counsel at Boston Scientific]]>3154litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-sonny-perdue-u-s-s
Featuring:
-- Hon. George Ervin "Sonny" Perdue III , U.S. Secretary of Agriculture]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/30436441Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:00:44 +0000The Federalist SocietySecretary Perdue will discuss USDA’s response to the coronavirus pandemic including the stability of the food supply chain, President Trump’s invocation of the Defense Production Act regarding meatpacking facilities, and USDA’s deregulatory agenda...
Featuring:
-- Hon. George Ervin "Sonny" Perdue III , U.S. Secretary of Agriculture]]>1808cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-insurrection-act-executive-authority
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/30165107Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:00:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Insurrection Act of 1807 empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and National Guard troops inside the United States in certain circumstances. But what are the limits of this Presidential power; does does the...
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>3480cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-end-of-deference-how-states-are-lead
Featuring:
-- Daniel Ortner, Attorney , Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29915381Mon, 08 Jun 2020 15:00:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the last few years there has been a lot of critical attention directed towards Chevron and Seminole Rock/Kisor deference. In Kisor the Supreme Court narrowed and clarified but ultimately retained the deference given to agency interpretations of...
Featuring:
-- Daniel Ortner, Attorney , Pacific Legal Foundation]]>2433cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/just-compensation-a-suggestion-or-a-requFeaturing:
Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Daniel Woislaw, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29898548Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:13:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyCan states unilaterally decide not to pay takings judgments? Some states think so. Louisiana and Florida have laws that say no takings judgment can be paid unless money is specially appropriated to do so—and then they never get around to...Featuring:
Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Daniel Woislaw, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3397cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-chinese-governments-record-of-human-
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Robert Destro (on leave from the Catholic University Law faculty) will moderate a discussion on human rights and the rule of law in China. He will be joined by Professor Jerome Cohen of New York University Law School and Teng Biao, a former law professor, human rights lawyer, and political prisoner in China.

Featuring:
-- Dr. Teng Biao, Grove Human Rights Scholar, Hunter College
-- Prof. Jerome A. Cohen, Faculty Director Emeritus, New York University School of Law
-- Moderator: Robert A. Destro, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), U.S. Department of State]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29898637Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:30:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 4th, 1989, after several weeks of pro-democracy protests, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) put down the challenge to its power. Now, with Hong Kong, the CCP has set in motion a process for ending pro-democracy protests and challenges to its...
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Robert Destro (on leave from the Catholic University Law faculty) will moderate a discussion on human rights and the rule of law in China. He will be joined by Professor Jerome Cohen of New York University Law School and Teng Biao, a former law professor, human rights lawyer, and political prisoner in China.

Featuring:
-- Dr. Teng Biao, Grove Human Rights Scholar, Hunter College
-- Prof. Jerome A. Cohen, Faculty Director Emeritus, New York University School of Law
-- Moderator: Robert A. Destro, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), U.S. Department of State]]>5024cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/british-turmoil-after-brexit
Amidst all of this, Britain’s shutdown in response to Covid-19 has shortened further her one year post-Brexit track to produce a free trade agreement with the EU and a much coveted one with the U.S., while reshaping government policy in ways that will determine whether Boris Johnson’s Disraelian vision of private-led economic growth, with government to fill remaining social gaps, can survive. And, while the Covid crisis has stolen attention, other serious post-Brexit challenges remain. Some threaten the integrity of the UK, with Scotland — whose people are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit — using events to seek its own independence, and Northern Ireland, as divided as ever.

The combination of the UK’s withdrawal from Europe and a global pandemic have left a constitution sorely tested, a Tory Party sounding like Labor, a Labour Party in tatters, and a United Kingdom at risk of disunion. Join us as we sort it all out with our experts.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Alberto R. Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law
--Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
-- Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29574310Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:05:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn December, 2019, the British people voted to return an historic Tory majority to Parliament with Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, paving the way for the UK to leave the EU on January 31, 2020, an historic rupture known as “Brexit," reminding...
Amidst all of this, Britain’s shutdown in response to Covid-19 has shortened further her one year post-Brexit track to produce a free trade agreement with the EU and a much coveted one with the U.S., while reshaping government policy in ways that will determine whether Boris Johnson’s Disraelian vision of private-led economic growth, with government to fill remaining social gaps, can survive. And, while the Covid crisis has stolen attention, other serious post-Brexit challenges remain. Some threaten the integrity of the UK, with Scotland — whose people are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit — using events to seek its own independence, and Northern Ireland, as divided as ever.

The combination of the UK’s withdrawal from Europe and a global pandemic have left a constitution sorely tested, a Tory Party sounding like Labor, a Labour Party in tatters, and a United Kingdom at risk of disunion. Join us as we sort it all out with our experts.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Alberto R. Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law
--Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
-- Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law]]>3498cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/federal-liability-limitations-for-covid-
Featuring:
-- Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29571317Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat are the constitutional or other limits on Congressional authority to limit lawsuits that seek to hold businesses liable for COVID-19 exposure or other COVID-19-related claims? What identifiable federal interests are at stake? How do these...
Featuring:
-- Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day]]>1867cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-brent-j-mcintosh-u
Featuring:
-- Brent J. McIntosh, Under Secretary, International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29026006Wed, 03 Jun 2020 16:49:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Brent J. McIntosh, Under Secretary for International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Treasury, discusses the priorities and work of his office before, during and after COVID-19. Featuring: -- Brent J. McIntosh, Under Secretary,...
Featuring:
-- Brent J. McIntosh, Under Secretary, International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury]]>3226cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-associational-privacy-Featuring:
Mr. Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Mr. Allen Dickerson, Legal Director, Institute for Free Speech
Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Vice President, Policy & Litigation, Common Cause
Mr. Derek Shaffer, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29025749Wed, 03 Jun 2020 16:04:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment right to privacy of association and belief. Almost 60 years later, while California's Attorney General began requiring charities to provide their office with a...Featuring:
Mr. Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Mr. Allen Dickerson, Legal Director, Institute for Free Speech
Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Vice President, Policy & Litigation, Common Cause
Mr. Derek Shaffer, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>4122cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-counFeaturing:
Glenn Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29025048Wed, 03 Jun 2020 16:02:17 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court released the decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund on April 23, 2020. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated, and the case remanded. Justice Breyer's majority...Featuring:
Glenn Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>1773cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/diversity-and-elimination-of-bias-cle-te_1Written Materials: Click Here
Certificate of Attendance: Click Here (Fill in the form with the two unique codes!)
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity for attorneys in New York, California, Minnesota, and Illinois to fulfill the one-hour “Diversity and Elimination of Bias” CLE requirement in those states.
On September 30 a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling rejecting discrimination claims in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170309 (D. Mass.), a case that many expect to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially redefine affirmative action law. In the case, Asian-American students allege that Harvard’s racial preferences for other minority groups discriminate against them in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The students introduced evidence that Asian enrollment at Harvard is less than half what it would be if admission was based solely on academic achievement; that Asian applicants receive the lowest scores on an amorphous “personal rating” assigned by admissions officials who have not met them; and that Harvard’s “holistic” admissions system, touted by the Supreme Court as the model for permissible racial preferences, was originally devised to exclude Jews.
The case raises the question of the meaning of “diversity” in an increasingly multi-racial era, and the continued justification for affirmative action in that era when its burden may now fall largely not on the white majority but on another historically marginalized racial minority group.
Dennis Saffran, a New York appellate attorney and Vice President of the Federalist Society Long Island Lawyers Chapter, submitted an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the National Association of Scholars and has written about the case for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. He will review the Supreme Court’s major affirmative action precedents since Bakke in 1978 and the arguments in the Harvard litigation in light of these precedents.

**Additional CLE Instructions:


Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 2:55 p.m. ET on Tuesday, March 31st, 2020
An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29022111Wed, 03 Jun 2020 16:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyElectronic Sign In: Click Here (Sign-in now!) Written Materials: Click Here Certificate of Attendance: Click Here (Fill in the form with the two unique codes!) The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity for attorneys in New York,...Written Materials: Click Here
Certificate of Attendance: Click Here (Fill in the form with the two unique codes!)
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity for attorneys in New York, California, Minnesota, and Illinois to fulfill the one-hour “Diversity and Elimination of Bias” CLE requirement in those states.
On September 30 a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling rejecting discrimination claims in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170309 (D. Mass.), a case that many expect to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially redefine affirmative action law. In the case, Asian-American students allege that Harvard’s racial preferences for other minority groups discriminate against them in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The students introduced evidence that Asian enrollment at Harvard is less than half what it would be if admission was based solely on academic achievement; that Asian applicants receive the lowest scores on an amorphous “personal rating” assigned by admissions officials who have not met them; and that Harvard’s “holistic” admissions system, touted by the Supreme Court as the model for permissible racial preferences, was originally devised to exclude Jews.
The case raises the question of the meaning of “diversity” in an increasingly multi-racial era, and the continued justification for affirmative action in that era when its burden may now fall largely not on the white majority but on another historically marginalized racial minority group.
Dennis Saffran, a New York appellate attorney and Vice President of the Federalist Society Long Island Lawyers Chapter, submitted an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the National Association of Scholars and has written about the case for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. He will review the Supreme Court’s major affirmative action precedents since Bakke in 1978 and the arguments in the Harvard litigation in light of these precedents.

**Additional CLE Instructions:


Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 2:55 p.m. ET on Tuesday, March 31st, 2020
An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.]]>3397cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/an-update-on-patents-and-antitrust
Featuring:
-- Hon. Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust, United States Department of Justice
-- Hon. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce, Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29137781Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:00:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as our experts give an update on the intersection of patent and antitrust issues including, but not limited to, recent developments in standard essential patents, the pros and cons of patent counting, patent pools and whether current remedies...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust, United States Department of Justice
-- Hon. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce, Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office]]>3333cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/whats-next-in-the-flynn-case
Were the charges against Flynn justified? Was Flynn dealt with fairly and according to law as the case proceeded? Is the Department correct in moving to dismiss notwithstanding Flynn's guilty plea and previous decision not to withdraw the plea? How much discretion does Judge Sullivan have in considering the government's motion to dismiss, and what principles should guide the exercise of that discretion? What is the propriety of appointing an amicus in district court when the parties themselves agree on the proper disposition?

Join our panel of experts who will discuss these questions.

Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University, and former Special White House Counsel for President George H. W. Bush
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29026111Wed, 03 Jun 2020 12:30:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyGen. Mike Flynn, at one time the President's National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to making false statements to an FBI agent who interviewed him shortly after the President took office. The charge was brought by the Office of Special Counsel and...
Were the charges against Flynn justified? Was Flynn dealt with fairly and according to law as the case proceeded? Is the Department correct in moving to dismiss notwithstanding Flynn's guilty plea and previous decision not to withdraw the plea? How much discretion does Judge Sullivan have in considering the government's motion to dismiss, and what principles should guide the exercise of that discretion? What is the propriety of appointing an amicus in district court when the parties themselves agree on the proper disposition?

Join our panel of experts who will discuss these questions.

Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University, and former Special White House Counsel for President George H. W. Bush
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>3596cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-special-relationship-u-k-and-u-s-trade
Joining us for a discussion on this topic, we welcome former U.S. Senator Phill Gramm.

Featuring,
-- The Hon. William Phillip Gramm, Former United States Senator for the state of Texas
-- Matthew Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute
-- Moderator: Wayne Abernathy, Chair of the Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group, and Former Executive Vice-President for the American Bankers Association]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29026198Wed, 03 Jun 2020 12:08:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe revolutionary "Brexit" vote heard round the world happened almost four years ago, and it will likely take even longer before the full global ramifications are realized on an international level. One of the key aspects to these ramifications has...
Joining us for a discussion on this topic, we welcome former U.S. Senator Phill Gramm.

Featuring,
-- The Hon. William Phillip Gramm, Former United States Senator for the state of Texas
-- Matthew Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute
-- Moderator: Wayne Abernathy, Chair of the Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group, and Former Executive Vice-President for the American Bankers Association]]>3454cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-property-rights-do-government-aFeaturing:
Prof. F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Instructor of Accounting, University of Central Florida College of Business
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28905436Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:30:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyNumerous businesses around the country have been shuttered by state government shutdown orders adopted to try to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Some have filed lawsuits claiming that such forced closures are takings requiring compensation...Featuring:
Prof. F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Instructor of Accounting, University of Central Florida College of Business
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3606cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-atlantic-richfFeaturing:Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28902125Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:21:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, held that owners of polluted land within designated Superfund sites are “potentially responsible parties” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability...Featuring:Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1939cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-co-dept-oFeaturing:
Prof. Derek Muller, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28902005Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:18:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College. In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, Case No. 19-518, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted...Featuring:
Prof. Derek Muller, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2312cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-ny-sFeaturing:
David Thompson, Cooper & Kirk
Amy Swearer, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28906462Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:04:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation and David Thompson of Cooper & Kirk for a discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NY State & Rifle Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. The presenters will cover...Featuring:
David Thompson, Cooper & Kirk
Amy Swearer, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies]]>2555cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/nuclear-arms-agreements-and-human-rights
Our speakers will be Roya Hakakian, who has written extensively about Iran and who co-founded the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center at Yale; Ben Rogers, who serves as East Asia Team Leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide and who is a founder of the International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea; and Professor David Koplow of Georgetown University, an expert on national security law and policy who has served in senior USG arms control positions, most recently in the Defense Department.

Featuring:
-- Roya Hakakian, Author and Founding Member, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center
-- Prof. David A. Koplow, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
-- Benedict Rogers, East Asia Team Leader, Christian Solidarity Worldwide
-- Moderator: Sean Nelson, Legal Counsel for Global Religious Freedom, ADF International]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28903195Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:21:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyGovernments that seek to acquire nuclear weapons, such as Iran and North Korea, are sometimes serious violators of the rights of their citizens. Is it appropriate for the United States and other democratic nations to negotiate agreements with these...
Our speakers will be Roya Hakakian, who has written extensively about Iran and who co-founded the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center at Yale; Ben Rogers, who serves as East Asia Team Leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide and who is a founder of the International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea; and Professor David Koplow of Georgetown University, an expert on national security law and policy who has served in senior USG arms control positions, most recently in the Defense Department.

Featuring:
-- Roya Hakakian, Author and Founding Member, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center
-- Prof. David A. Koplow, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
-- Benedict Rogers, East Asia Team Leader, Christian Solidarity Worldwide
-- Moderator: Sean Nelson, Legal Counsel for Global Religious Freedom, ADF International]]>4304cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-trump-v-m
Starting with the Congressional subpoenas, the President claims that these subpoenas are for information protected under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which prohibits disclosure of a customer's financial records to "any Government authority" without certain procedures the committees concede they did not follow; but the committees claim that they are not a “Government authority” under the meaning of the Act. Secondly, the President claims the Internal Revenue Code, which allows disclosure but only with procedural requirements the committees admit that they have not done. But the committees claim this requirement only applies if the bank acquired the tax documents from the IRS. Third, the President claims there is no legitimate legislative purpose to the subpoena which is required for such a legislative subpoena. The committees note that although that requirement exists, the scope of what is within a proper legislative purpose is very broad and met in this case.

The Supreme Court has also asked the parties to brief whether these congressional subpoenas are the kind of dispute between the branches that the court should avoid.

As to the local New York grand jury subpoena, the President claims that he is absolutely immune from all stages of state criminal process while in office, including pre-indictment investigation.

Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results of the Supreme Court oral argument on these cases.

Featuring:
-- Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28901970Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:07:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyThree cases before the Supreme Court consider the ability of grand juries and congressional committees to subpoena the personal tax records of the President. In Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees subpoenaed the...
Starting with the Congressional subpoenas, the President claims that these subpoenas are for information protected under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which prohibits disclosure of a customer's financial records to "any Government authority" without certain procedures the committees concede they did not follow; but the committees claim that they are not a “Government authority” under the meaning of the Act. Secondly, the President claims the Internal Revenue Code, which allows disclosure but only with procedural requirements the committees admit that they have not done. But the committees claim this requirement only applies if the bank acquired the tax documents from the IRS. Third, the President claims there is no legitimate legislative purpose to the subpoena which is required for such a legislative subpoena. The committees note that although that requirement exists, the scope of what is within a proper legislative purpose is very broad and met in this case.

The Supreme Court has also asked the parties to brief whether these congressional subpoenas are the kind of dispute between the branches that the court should avoid.

As to the local New York grand jury subpoena, the President claims that he is absolutely immune from all stages of state criminal process while in office, including pre-indictment investigation.

Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results of the Supreme Court oral argument on these cases.

Featuring:
-- Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>2410cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_12
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Teleforum for reaction to the McGirt argument. The panel will feature Andy Lester and A.J. Ferate, with the Oklahoma City office of Spencer Fane, and University of Oklahoma W. DeVier Pierson Professor of Law Taiawagi “Tai” Helton.

Featuring:
-- A.J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
-- Andy Lester, Partner, Spencer Fane LLP
-- Prof. Taiawagi “Tai” Helton, W. DeVier Pierson Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28901888Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:03:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyTribal jurisdiction is again before the Supreme Court. Following November 2018 arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts first requested additional briefing and then announced new arguments would occur in Sharp v. Murphy. Instead, the Court granted...
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Teleforum for reaction to the McGirt argument. The panel will feature Andy Lester and A.J. Ferate, with the Oklahoma City office of Spencer Fane, and University of Oklahoma W. DeVier Pierson Professor of Law Taiawagi “Tai” Helton.

Featuring:
-- A.J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
-- Andy Lester, Partner, Spencer Fane LLP
-- Prof. Taiawagi “Tai” Helton, W. DeVier Pierson Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law]]>3325cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-restoring-internet-freedom-order-on-
Featuring:
-- Matthew Brill, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP
-- Kristine (Fargotstein) Hackman, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy at USTelecom – The Broadband Association
-- Russell Hanser, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP
-- Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28901739Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:00:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Mozilla v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order in which the current Commission rejected the Obama Administration’s 'net neutrality' efforts to impose legacy common carrier...
Featuring:
-- Matthew Brill, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP
-- Kristine (Fargotstein) Hackman, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy at USTelecom – The Broadband Association
-- Russell Hanser, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP
-- Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>3717cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_11Eight years later, the question of “who’s a minister?” is back before the Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, and St. James School v. Biel. In each case, teachers at Catholic schools brought discrimination claims, and the Ninth Circuit concluded the ministerial exception did not apply. Now before the Supreme Court, the schools contend that the Ninth Circuit has adopted the “rigid formula” that the Hosanna-Tabor Court eschewed, and they argue that in most cases a “religious functions” test is sufficient.
This is one of the few cases the Court has selected for telephonic argument, which will be held on May 11, 2020. Joining us hours after the argument, for a Courthouse Steps teleforum, will be Jesse Panuccio, who authored an amicus brief in the case on behalf of members of Congress and in support of the schools. Mr. Panuccio is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and is the former Acting Associate Attorney General of the United States.
Featuring:
Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

This call is open to the public: please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28822636Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:22:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, the Supreme Court, in 2012, unanimously held that, under the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, “it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s...Eight years later, the question of “who’s a minister?” is back before the Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, and St. James School v. Biel. In each case, teachers at Catholic schools brought discrimination claims, and the Ninth Circuit concluded the ministerial exception did not apply. Now before the Supreme Court, the schools contend that the Ninth Circuit has adopted the “rigid formula” that the Hosanna-Tabor Court eschewed, and they argue that in most cases a “religious functions” test is sufficient.
This is one of the few cases the Court has selected for telephonic argument, which will be held on May 11, 2020. Joining us hours after the argument, for a Courthouse Steps teleforum, will be Jesse Panuccio, who authored an amicus brief in the case on behalf of members of Congress and in support of the schools. Mr. Panuccio is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and is the former Acting Associate Attorney General of the United States.
Featuring:
Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

This call is open to the public: please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3373cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-kellSteve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, will offer his thoughts on the implications of the ruling.
Featuring:
Mr. Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28818562Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:11:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyBridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as a political punishment against the mayor of Fort Lee, New...Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, will offer his thoughts on the implications of the ruling.
Featuring:
Mr. Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2166cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-thryWhile this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the Court would not “allow a bureaucracy in Washington to ‘cancel’ a citizen’s right to his farm…” the Court should not allow the Patent Office to cancel an issued patent (especially without judicial review).
Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argued against the core principles established in the Supreme Court’s Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018) decision—where he also dissented. In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that patents are not “property rights” in the traditional sense, but rather are “public franchises” granted (and subject to revocation) by the government. Oil States left, for another day, the question of whether compensation is required, and in what circumstances, when the government acts to revoke a previously granted patent.
In response to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, the majority asserted that:
The dissent acknowledges that “Congress authorized inter partes review to encourage further scrutiny of already issued patents.” . . . The second look Congress put in place is assigned to the very same bureaucracy that granted the patent in the first place. Why should that bureaucracy be trusted to give an honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?
The majority reached its conclusion – the Patent Office’s decision to hear an IPR challenge is not reviewable on time-bar grounds – in harmony with the expressed purpose of IPR reviews: making it easier to eliminate “bad patents” and to prevent the “wast[e] of resources spent resolving patentability.” Essentially, majority concluded that if the patent owner was able to challenge the PTO’s decision to cancel a patent on the merits – as opposed to on the procedure – she would do so (and such merits based challenges are subject to judicial review).
Please join our expert, Daniel L. Geyser, in a discussion of the oral argument. Dan represented Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in the Supreme Court.
Featuring:
Mr. Daniel L. Geyser, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Geyser, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28818446Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:00:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision to hear an inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge is not subject to judicial review on time-bar...While this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the Court would not “allow a bureaucracy in Washington to ‘cancel’ a citizen’s right to his farm…” the Court should not allow the Patent Office to cancel an issued patent (especially without judicial review).
Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argued against the core principles established in the Supreme Court’s Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018) decision—where he also dissented. In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that patents are not “property rights” in the traditional sense, but rather are “public franchises” granted (and subject to revocation) by the government. Oil States left, for another day, the question of whether compensation is required, and in what circumstances, when the government acts to revoke a previously granted patent.
In response to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, the majority asserted that:
The dissent acknowledges that “Congress authorized inter partes review to encourage further scrutiny of already issued patents.” . . . The second look Congress put in place is assigned to the very same bureaucracy that granted the patent in the first place. Why should that bureaucracy be trusted to give an honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?
The majority reached its conclusion – the Patent Office’s decision to hear an IPR challenge is not reviewable on time-bar grounds – in harmony with the expressed purpose of IPR reviews: making it easier to eliminate “bad patents” and to prevent the “wast[e] of resources spent resolving patentability.” Essentially, majority concluded that if the patent owner was able to challenge the PTO’s decision to cancel a patent on the merits – as opposed to on the procedure – she would do so (and such merits based challenges are subject to judicial review).
Please join our expert, Daniel L. Geyser, in a discussion of the oral argument. Dan represented Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in the Supreme Court.
Featuring:
Mr. Daniel L. Geyser, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Geyser, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2470cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-barr-v-amFeaturing:
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28818217Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:15:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe oral argument for this case will be held on May 6, 2020. At issue is whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper...Featuring:
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>3081cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-usaid-v-aFeaturing:
Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute
Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28818118Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:05:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important First Amendment case, USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., Case No. 19-177, regarding the scope of the government’s funding power to limit private speech....Featuring:
Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch Institute
Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2812cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/junk-science-and-legal-testimony-in-a-co
Featuring:
-- Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-- Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Taxpayers Protection Alliance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28822569Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:30:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyCOVID-19 has disrupted the world like few other events in recent history. The disruptions are sure to lead to disagreements and serious legal disputes. As matters are sorted out in courts across the country, how should and how will science and expert...
Featuring:
-- Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-- Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Taxpayers Protection Alliance]]>2938cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/drive-in-churches-and-the-constitution-b
Featuring:
-- Matthew T. Martens, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
-- Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28818606Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:14:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlmost every religious institution closed its doors in mid-March in response to requests and then order from various levels of government in the name of slowing or stopping the spread of COVID-19. Many religious institutions responded to the...
Featuring:
-- Matthew T. Martens, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
-- Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>3474cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-unit
Featuring:
-- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28818519Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyToday the Supreme Court released the decision in United States v. Sineneng-Smith. By a vote of 9-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Although every member of the Court joined Justice...
Featuring:
-- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland]]>2374cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_10
Featuring:
-- Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28818301Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:19:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe oral argument for this case will be held on May 6, 2020. At issue are: (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the...
Featuring:
-- Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School]]>2019cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/legal-implications-of-the-international-
Featuring:
-- Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
-- Charles "Cully" Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, National Security Law Program, The Heritage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28817813Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:02:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2017, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced her formal request to open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber denied...
Featuring:
-- Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
-- Charles "Cully" Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, National Security Law Program, The Heritage Foundation]]>4083criminal law & procedure,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_9
Featuring:
-- Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer, III, Partner, Michael, Best & Friedrich LLP
-- Mr. Zvi S. Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28817439Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:00:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyIt has long been a staple of trademark law that one cannot receive a registered trademark for a generic term - for instance a trademark for "socks" would be useless because it indicates the type of goods being sold, not the source of those goods....
Featuring:
-- Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer, III, Partner, Michael, Best & Friedrich LLP
-- Mr. Zvi S. Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law]]>2640cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-liability-issuesFeaturing:
Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, State of Georgia
Harold Kim, President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28062671Fri, 22 May 2020 15:38:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyCOVID-19 has changed life as we know it in innumerable ways. But what can we expect from the trial bar and in litigation generally? How will liability issues be sorted during and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? Further, who will decide? How can...Featuring:
Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, State of Georgia
Harold Kim, President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3465cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/federalism-covid-19-and-the-administratiFeaturing:
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28062550Fri, 22 May 2020 15:34:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyQuestions of vertical and horizontal separation of powers have risen sharply during the coronavirus pandemic. Join us as John Malcolm and John Yoo discuss the balance of powers between the President, Congress, and state governors over lockdown and...Featuring:
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3571cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-eric-s-dreiband-as
Featuring:
-- Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/29571267Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, discusses the priorities and work of his office before, during and after COVID-19. Featuring: -- Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney...
Featuring:
-- Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice]]>2354cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/address-by-oira-administrator-hon-paul-j
As our final event of our Executive Branch Review week, Paul Ray, head of OIRA, joins us to discuss his work and the current relevant issues facing the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Paul J. Ray, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28062953Fri, 22 May 2020 11:44:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affair (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (Office of Management and Budget ). Executive Order 12291, issued by President Reagan in 1981, gave OIRA the...
As our final event of our Executive Branch Review week, Paul Ray, head of OIRA, joins us to discuss his work and the current relevant issues facing the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Paul J. Ray, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget]]>2612cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/executive-orders-on-guidance-implication
Featuring:
-- Hon. Steven Bradbury, General Counsel (and performing the functions and duties of Deputy Secretary), U.S. Department of Transportation
-- John Walke, Director, Clean Air Project, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
-- Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28062627Fri, 22 May 2020 11:36:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn October of 2019, President Trump issued an executive order that imposed a series of restrictions and requirements on Federal agencies, and even included a requirement that agencies publish their guidance on the Internet. The purpose of the...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Steven Bradbury, General Counsel (and performing the functions and duties of Deputy Secretary), U.S. Department of Transportation
-- John Walke, Director, Clean Air Project, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
-- Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University]]>3610cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/unitary-executive-and-independent-agenci
Featuring:
-- Prof. William Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
-- Hon. Daniel Gallagher, Deputy Chair, Securities Department, WilmerHale and former Commissioner of the SEC
-- Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts LLP, and former Commissioner of the FTC
-- Prof. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center, former Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28062262Fri, 22 May 2020 11:33:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyArticle II of the United States Constitution provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This declarative statement gave rise to a theory of U.S. constitutional law that posits the President...
Featuring:
-- Prof. William Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
-- Hon. Daniel Gallagher, Deputy Chair, Securities Department, WilmerHale and former Commissioner of the SEC
-- Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts LLP, and former Commissioner of the FTC
-- Prof. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center, former Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection]]>3530cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/nationwide-injunctions
Featuring:
-- Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLP
-- Hon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, Texas
-- Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28061307Fri, 22 May 2020 11:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat is the true role and authority of courts to nullify Federal law? During the Obama administration, district judges issued twenty nationwide injunctions, and during the Trump administration district judges have issued over forty of these...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLP
-- Hon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, Texas
-- Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice]]>3576cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/section-230-of-the-communications-decenc
Featuring:
-- Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC
-- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute
-- Josh Divine, Deputy Counsel, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/28072656Fri, 22 May 2020 10:15:13 +0000The Federalist SocietySection 230 of Communications Decency Act protects platforms from liability for the content produced by users. As social media platforms have evolved, concerns about free speech and platform liability have sparked debates among legislators regarding...
Featuring:
-- Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC
-- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute
-- Josh Divine, Deputy Counsel, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley]]>3763cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fcpa-enforcement-in-the-trump-administraFeaturing:
Rod J. Rosenstein, Partner, King & Spalding LLP
Jonathan C. Su, Partner, Latham & Watkins
Moderator: Brian Lichter, Senior Director, Global Investigations, Cognizant

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27896589Wed, 20 May 2020 18:30:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) governs conduct of U.S. businesses and individuals conducting business abroad, penalizing them for paying bribes to foreign officials in business dealings. This teleforum will discuss recent developments in...Featuring:
Rod J. Rosenstein, Partner, King & Spalding LLP
Jonathan C. Su, Partner, Latham & Watkins
Moderator: Brian Lichter, Senior Director, Global Investigations, Cognizant

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3471cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/view-from-the-ground-level-practical-iss
Featuring:
-- Jennifer R. McCain, Shareholder, Maynard Cooper Gale
-- Christian Otteson, Partner, Shapiro Bieging Barber Otteson
-- Jonathan Hightower, Partner, Fenimore, Kay, Harrison & Ford, LLP
-- C. Wallace Dewitt, Adjunct Scholar, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27896648Wed, 20 May 2020 14:00:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will be a collaborative discussion for attorneys who represent financial institutions, in particular those organizations that are participating in paycheck protection program created by the CARES Act. Featuring: -- Jennifer R....
Featuring:
-- Jennifer R. McCain, Shareholder, Maynard Cooper Gale
-- Christian Otteson, Partner, Shapiro Bieging Barber Otteson
-- Jonathan Hightower, Partner, Fenimore, Kay, Harrison & Ford, LLP
-- C. Wallace Dewitt, Adjunct Scholar, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives]]>3623cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-state-power-and-civil-libertiesFeaturing:
Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27430376Fri, 15 May 2020 15:32:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1787, there existed a well-developed body of law on the subject of infectious diseases. Over the next 150 years, the nation dealt with new viral challenges as contagion(s) spread through wartime, imperial ventures in tropical regions, and the...Featuring:
Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3515cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-ramoFeaturing:
John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27429744Fri, 15 May 2020 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a decision in Ramos v. Louisiana handed down on April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a unanimous jury verdict in both federal and state courts. In reaching its decision, the...Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3852cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/surviving-covid-19-the-small-business-pe
Featuring:
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27430315Fri, 15 May 2020 11:30:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs small businesses across the country grapple with the current and potential impacts associated with COVID-19, the National Federation of Independent Business continues to track the latest developments from healthcare officials, congress and the...
Featuring:
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center]]>1751cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-singapore-convention-on-mediation-wh
Featuring:
-- Prof. Roger Alford, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
-- Gary Birnberg, JAMS Mediator and Arbitrator
-- Mushegh Manukyan, Mediation Specialist, Office of the Ombudsman for UN Funds and Programmes, United Nations
-- Harout J. Samra, Associate, DLA Piper]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27430257Fri, 15 May 2020 11:13:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Singapore Convention on Mediation was opened for signature on August 7, 2019, with the United States, China, and India among its first signatories. The Convention is “expected to bring certainty and stability to the international framework on...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Roger Alford, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
-- Gary Birnberg, JAMS Mediator and Arbitrator
-- Mushegh Manukyan, Mediation Specialist, Office of the Ombudsman for UN Funds and Programmes, United Nations
-- Harout J. Samra, Associate, DLA Piper]]>3740cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-pros-and-cons-of-new-york-s-bail-ref
Featuring:
-- Insha Rahman, Director of Strategy and New Initiatives,Vera Institute of Justice
-- Craig Trainor, Founder, Trainor Law, P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27427724Fri, 15 May 2020 11:00:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlmost exactly a year ago—on April 1, 2019—New York State enacted groundbreaking bail reform that eliminated cash bail for almost 90% of arrests and resulted in a 30% drop in the statewide jail population. The measure took effect on January 1, 2020,...
Featuring:
-- Insha Rahman, Director of Strategy and New Initiatives,Vera Institute of Justice
-- Craig Trainor, Founder, Trainor Law, P.C.]]>3481cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-noah-phillips-comm
Featuring:
-- Noah Phillips, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27418121Fri, 15 May 2020 10:30:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyCommissioner Phillips will join us to discuss data privacy and the COVID pandemic. Other topics may include the impact of new technologies in addressing the crisis, how the FTC and other privacy enforcers around the world are responding, the ways in...
Featuring:
-- Noah Phillips, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission]]>2415cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/working-from-home-cyber-hygiene-in-the-c
While every organization’s information security defenses are unique, some of the most common risks to be addressed concerning remote work include the following: unsecure personal and public WiFi networks; working on unsecure personal devices; transferring corporate data using personal e-mail accounts; synching with personal cloud storage accounts; physical document management and destruction; unsecure connections to employer systems; unsecure conference call lines; and phishing schemes and other frauds. Because many employees are justifiably concerned for the health and safety of themselves and their families, it is understandable if data security is not their first priority. However, with some careful planning, well-defined policies, and transparent communication between employees and management, companies should be able to maintain the security of their data while keeping their employees safe.

Featuring:
-- Nicholas Degani, Senior Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
-- Paul Eisler, Director, Cybersecurity, USTelecom
-- Joseph V. DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27415245Fri, 15 May 2020 10:20:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs corporations and even entire municipalities are increasingly advising or requiring their employees to work from home in light of COVID-19, it is important to remember that doing so it not without its risks. For any organization that has information...
While every organization’s information security defenses are unique, some of the most common risks to be addressed concerning remote work include the following: unsecure personal and public WiFi networks; working on unsecure personal devices; transferring corporate data using personal e-mail accounts; synching with personal cloud storage accounts; physical document management and destruction; unsecure connections to employer systems; unsecure conference call lines; and phishing schemes and other frauds. Because many employees are justifiably concerned for the health and safety of themselves and their families, it is understandable if data security is not their first priority. However, with some careful planning, well-defined policies, and transparent communication between employees and management, companies should be able to maintain the security of their data while keeping their employees safe.

Featuring:
-- Nicholas Degani, Senior Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
-- Paul Eisler, Director, Cybersecurity, USTelecom
-- Joseph V. DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP]]>2965cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/broadcast-journalism-and-the-first-amend
The Commission denied this petition, citing both the First Amendment and Section 326 of the Communications Act:

The Commission does not—and cannot and will not—act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Free Press’s assertions regarding any lack of veracity were true, false speech enjoys some First Amendment protection, and section 326 of the Communications Act, reflecting First Amendment values, prohibits the Commission from interfering with freedom of the press or censoring broadcast communications.

Thomas Johnson, General Counsel of the FCC and the co-author of the Commission’s letter denying this petition, as well as Randolph May, Founder and President of the Free State Foundation, will discuss the Commission’s response to this petition, as well as broader First Amendment and policy issues raised by the Commission’s role in regulating broadcast journalism. Does the Commission have a duty, as Free Press asserts, “to rein in broadcasters that seed confusion with lies and disinformation”? What is the Commission’s role in regulating broadcast journalism, and how does it square this role with the First Amendment? To what extent does the First Amendment protect false or misleading speech?

Featuring:
-- Thomas Johnson, General Counsel, FCC
-- Randolph May, Founder and President, Free State Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27414450Fri, 15 May 2020 10:08:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyBroadcasters—not the FCC—are responsible for selecting the material that they air. This is why the Commission recently denied a petition filed by Free Press, a public interest group focused on media issues, requesting that the Commission investigate...
The Commission denied this petition, citing both the First Amendment and Section 326 of the Communications Act:

The Commission does not—and cannot and will not—act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Free Press’s assertions regarding any lack of veracity were true, false speech enjoys some First Amendment protection, and section 326 of the Communications Act, reflecting First Amendment values, prohibits the Commission from interfering with freedom of the press or censoring broadcast communications.

Thomas Johnson, General Counsel of the FCC and the co-author of the Commission’s letter denying this petition, as well as Randolph May, Founder and President of the Free State Foundation, will discuss the Commission’s response to this petition, as well as broader First Amendment and policy issues raised by the Commission’s role in regulating broadcast journalism. Does the Commission have a duty, as Free Press asserts, “to rein in broadcasters that seed confusion with lies and disinformation”? What is the Commission’s role in regulating broadcast journalism, and how does it square this role with the First Amendment? To what extent does the First Amendment protect false or misleading speech?

Featuring:
-- Thomas Johnson, General Counsel, FCC
-- Randolph May, Founder and President, Free State Foundation]]>3807cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/china-taiwan-relations-and-international
Featuring:
-- Dr. June Teufel Dreyer, Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables
-- Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
-- Moderator: Saul Newsome, Attorney, Newsome International Law, LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27414249Fri, 15 May 2020 10:04:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum provides a wide-ranging discussion on the recent developments in the China-Taiwan relationship. It explores the role that the United States may have in light of Taiwan Relations Act obligations and regional stability to provide both...
Featuring:
-- Dr. June Teufel Dreyer, Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables
-- Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
-- Moderator: Saul Newsome, Attorney, Newsome International Law, LLC]]>4096cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/watching-the-terror-watchlist
Join former DHS General Counsel Joe Whitley and Professor Tung Yin for a fascinating conversation on these cases and the current legal and policy landscapes concerning watchlists. The discussion will be moderated by the former Senior Advisor for Legal Policy at the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, Adam Pearlman.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Joe D. Whitley, Chair, Government Enforcement & Investigations Group, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
-- Prof. Tung Yin, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School
-- Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Managing Director, Lexpat Global Services]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27414046Fri, 15 May 2020 10:01:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWatchlisting people with known or suspected ties to terrorism has long been a key tool among U.S. counterterrorism and transportation security programs. For just as long, a wide range of people – from U.S. citizens to foreign nationals with no legal...
Join former DHS General Counsel Joe Whitley and Professor Tung Yin for a fascinating conversation on these cases and the current legal and policy landscapes concerning watchlists. The discussion will be moderated by the former Senior Advisor for Legal Policy at the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, Adam Pearlman.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Joe D. Whitley, Chair, Government Enforcement & Investigations Group, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
-- Prof. Tung Yin, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School
-- Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Managing Director, Lexpat Global Services]]>4171cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-actions-taken-by-the-federal-re
Featuring:
-- Paul Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners
-- Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company Inc.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27414008Fri, 15 May 2020 10:00:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyPaul Atkins, Patomak Global Partners CEO, and banking consultant Bert Ely discuss the numerous programs Congress, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has directed the Federal Reserve to implement to provide financial support to America's financial...
Featuring:
-- Paul Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners
-- Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company Inc.]]>3454cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-national-labor-relations-board-s-new
(1) Ending the controversial “blocking charge” policy that allowed unions to unilaterally halt secret ballot elections by filing unfair labor practice charges alleging employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

(2) Reinstating the rule of Dana Corp., 351 NLRB 434 (2007), which allows employees to call for a secret ballot election after an employer voluntarily recognizes a union pursuant to a “card-check." The Dana rule had been in effect until it was overruled by the Board in Lamons Gasket Co., 357 NLRB 739 (2011).

(3) A construction industry employer and union may no longer bar an employee’s election petition if they converted their Section 8(f) bargaining relationship into a Section 9(a) “exclusive representation” relationship without proof of majority employee support for the union.

All of these new rules recognize that secret ballot elections are the “gold standard” under the NLRA and are preferred to “card checks” and other informal processes by which unions become bargaining representatives of all employees in a bargaining unit.

Aaron Solem, a Staff Attorney at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, will discuss the arguments for and against the final rules, and what these changes portend for NLRB elections and employee free choice.

Featuring:
-- Aaron Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27413940Fri, 15 May 2020 09:30:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has used rulemaking only a few times through the decades. But the Board recently issued final rules that make major changes to secret ballot election petitions, particularly decertification petitions. The...
(1) Ending the controversial “blocking charge” policy that allowed unions to unilaterally halt secret ballot elections by filing unfair labor practice charges alleging employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

(2) Reinstating the rule of Dana Corp., 351 NLRB 434 (2007), which allows employees to call for a secret ballot election after an employer voluntarily recognizes a union pursuant to a “card-check." The Dana rule had been in effect until it was overruled by the Board in Lamons Gasket Co., 357 NLRB 739 (2011).

(3) A construction industry employer and union may no longer bar an employee’s election petition if they converted their Section 8(f) bargaining relationship into a Section 9(a) “exclusive representation” relationship without proof of majority employee support for the union.

All of these new rules recognize that secret ballot elections are the “gold standard” under the NLRA and are preferred to “card checks” and other informal processes by which unions become bargaining representatives of all employees in a bargaining unit.

Aaron Solem, a Staff Attorney at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, will discuss the arguments for and against the final rules, and what these changes portend for NLRB elections and employee free choice.

Featuring:
-- Aaron Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation]]>2473cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-there-a-police-power-exception-to-theFeaturing:
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Moderator: Jeffrey Redfern, Attorney, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27167507Tue, 12 May 2020 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPolice in Greenwood Village, CO, chased a shoplifting suspect into a home belonging to Leo Lech and his family. When the suspect took a shot at the police, they responded by using an armored vehicle to tear gaping holes in the side of the house and...Featuring:
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Moderator: Jeffrey Redfern, Attorney, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2820cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/next-steps-in-justice-reform-after-the-f
Featuring:
-- Marc Levin, Chief of Policy & Innovation, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation
-- Rafael A. Mangual, Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy Contributing Editor, City Journal, The Manhattan Institute
-- Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties; Resident Senior Fellow, R Street Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27167641Tue, 12 May 2020 12:30:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated strains on all parts of our justice system from police officers on the frontlines to federal prisons. With the passage of the First Step Act signed by President Donald Trump in December 2018, the federal government...
Featuring:
-- Marc Levin, Chief of Policy & Innovation, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation
-- Rafael A. Mangual, Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy Contributing Editor, City Journal, The Manhattan Institute
-- Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties; Resident Senior Fellow, R Street Institute]]>3928cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-uttam-dhillon-acti
Featuring:
-- Uttam Dhillon, Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27167623Tue, 12 May 2020 12:15:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us as Uttam Dhillon, the Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, discusses the response to COVID-19, as well as the pressing issues of the opioid epidemic in America, the dangerous threat from fentanyl, and the proliferation...
Featuring:
-- Uttam Dhillon, Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration]]>2777cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/religious-freedom-in-a-pandemic
Featuring:
-- Kim Colby, Director of the Center of Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society
-- Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27167602Tue, 12 May 2020 12:10:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyShut-down orders issued by state governors amid the COVID-19 pandemic and federal responses to the pandemic such as the CARES Act raise a range of issues related to religious freedom. Join us for this teleforum that will discuss the constitutional and...
Featuring:
-- Kim Colby, Director of the Center of Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society
-- Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law]]>3492cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-importance-of-economic-freedom-durin
Featuring
--Ambassador Terry Miller, Director, Center for International Trade and Economics and Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
-- Nicolas Loris, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Moderator: Bryan Riley, Director, Free Trade Initiative, National Taxpayers Union]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27167564Tue, 12 May 2020 12:04:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Heritage Foundation’s newly released 2020 Index of Economic Freedom confirms yet again the economic and social benefits of policies that preserve and promote economic freedom. Economic freedom has grown over the last year in most of the world...
Featuring
--Ambassador Terry Miller, Director, Center for International Trade and Economics and Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
-- Nicolas Loris, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Moderator: Bryan Riley, Director, Free Trade Initiative, National Taxpayers Union]]>3830cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/covid-19-in-the-workplace-mandated-paid-
Featuring:
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
-- James A. Paretti, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/25533845Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:00:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 18, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act.” Among other things, this new law, set to take effect no later than April 2, 2020, creates a new paid sick leave mandate for all employers...
Featuring:
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
-- James A. Paretti, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>2628cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-alleFeaturing:
Prof. Steven Tepp, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington Law, and President and Founder of Sentinal Worldwide
Prof. John T. Cross, Grosscurth Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Technology Transfer, University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law
Prof. Ralph Oman, Pravel, Hewitt, Kimball and Kreiger Professorial Lecturer in Intellectual Property and Patent Law
Prof. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Professor, Duke Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/25422524Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:44:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOf Federalism, Copyright, and Blackbeard’s Revenge: The recent Supreme Court ruling in Allen v. Cooper is the latest development in a decades-long series of Congressional enactments and Supreme Court rulings over whether and how Congress can...Featuring:
Prof. Steven Tepp, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington Law, and President and Founder of Sentinal Worldwide
Prof. John T. Cross, Grosscurth Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Technology Transfer, University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law
Prof. Ralph Oman, Pravel, Hewitt, Kimball and Kreiger Professorial Lecturer in Intellectual Property and Patent Law
Prof. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Professor, Duke Law School]]>3601cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-changing-environment-for-apa-challen
Featuring:
-- Kristin Hickman is a Distinguished McKnight University Professor and the Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, who has published several of the seminal law review articles on this topic.
-- Stuart Bassin is a veteran litigator of tax cases and serves as the taxpayers’ counsel in one of the most prominent pending cases in this area. He was previously a trial attorney with the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
-- Moderator: Robert Carney is a Senior Counsel at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in Washington, D.C., specializing in tax controversy and tax litigation. He also was previously a trial attorney with the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/25422565Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyUntil recently, the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department typically issued regulations involving the tax law with scant compliance with the familiar procedural requirements of administrative law for primarily three reasons. First, because...
Featuring:
-- Kristin Hickman is a Distinguished McKnight University Professor and the Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, who has published several of the seminal law review articles on this topic.
-- Stuart Bassin is a veteran litigator of tax cases and serves as the taxpayers’ counsel in one of the most prominent pending cases in this area. He was previously a trial attorney with the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
-- Moderator: Robert Carney is a Senior Counsel at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in Washington, D.C., specializing in tax controversy and tax litigation. He also was previously a trial attorney with the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.]]>3363cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/will-covid-19-affect-international-tradehttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/25415838Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:15:47 +0000The Federalist Society3027cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/viral-menace-and-civil-libertiesFeaturing:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Prof. Anthony Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/25255140Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:30:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyFirst appearing in a 1949 dissent authored by Justice Robert H. Jackson, the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” is being cited today by critics of perceived government overreach. Local, state, and federal authorities have...Featuring:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Prof. Anthony Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3506cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-covid-19-and-the-suprehttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/25197015Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:59:07 +0000The Federalist Society2409litigation,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-kansBrian Fish will discuss today's opinion in Kansas v. Glover, its implications, and the dissent written by Justice Sotomayor.
Featuring:
Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/25196752Thu, 09 Apr 2020 20:00:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 6, 2020, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, held that reasonable suspicion for a vehicle stop exists where the officer is informed that the registered owner of the suspect vehicle has a suspended driver's license. In an opinion written by...Brian Fish will discuss today's opinion in Kansas v. Glover, its implications, and the dissent written by Justice Sotomayor.
Featuring:
Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2189cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-eric-hargan-deputyhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/24794434Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:30:36 +0000The Federalist Society1932cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-ajit-pai-chairman-https://api.spreaker.com/episode/25062196Thu, 09 Apr 2020 09:00:30 +0000The Federalist Society3320cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-right-to-bear-arms
Featuring:
-- Stephen Halbrook, author of The Founders’ Second Amendment and Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
-- Moderator: Mark Smith, Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College in New York City]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/25015035Wed, 08 Apr 2020 14:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyDoes the Second Amendment “right of the people” to “bear arms” protect an individual right to carry handguns outside of the home for lawful purposes, or may government officials decide who has a “good reason” to do so? After Heller held that the...
Featuring:
-- Stephen Halbrook, author of The Founders’ Second Amendment and Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
-- Moderator: Mark Smith, Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College in New York City]]>3643cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ex-prosecutors-and-the-federal-judiciaryJoin us as we discuss these controversial issues with our distinguished guests:
Clark Neily, Vice-President for Criminal Justice, The Cato Institute
Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Moderator: Jodi Balsam, Associate Professor of Clinical Law|Director, Externship Program Brooklyn Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/24748572Fri, 03 Apr 2020 19:02:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmongst the many studies of the makeup of the Federal Judiciary, one particularly noticeable characteristic is the overrepresentation of Ex-prosecutors in relation to other potential professional backgrounds on the federal bench. One recent study...Join us as we discuss these controversial issues with our distinguished guests:
Clark Neily, Vice-President for Criminal Justice, The Cato Institute
Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Moderator: Jodi Balsam, Associate Professor of Clinical Law|Director, Externship Program Brooklyn Law School]]>3545cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/modernizing-copyright-law-for-the-digita
Web-based streaming and online platform services featuring user-uploaded content present new market opportunities as well as new infringement dangers. Government and analyst reports have highlighted both the economic importance of copyright-intensive industries as well as the steep financial losses that result from mass online infringement as well as from piracy operations using illicit streaming devices and illegal IPTV streams. In 116th Congress, the House passed and the Senate is considering legislation to provide a voluntary venue for addressing small copyright infringement claims. The U.S. Senate's Intellectual Property Subcommittee has commenced a series of hearings to review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. And earlier this year, Congress passed the USMCA Free Trade Agreement, which contains important provisions to strengthen copyright protections. In their book, Mr. May and Mr. Cooper suggest specific reform measures on these topics and more. Join us for this timely discussion about proposals for reforming copyright law to fit the Digital Age.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/24791840Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:58:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this teleforum, co-authors Randolph May and Seth Cooper will highlight key themes from their new book, Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age: Constitutional Foundations for Reform (Carolina Academic Press, 2020). They will be joined by...
Web-based streaming and online platform services featuring user-uploaded content present new market opportunities as well as new infringement dangers. Government and analyst reports have highlighted both the economic importance of copyright-intensive industries as well as the steep financial losses that result from mass online infringement as well as from piracy operations using illicit streaming devices and illegal IPTV streams. In 116th Congress, the House passed and the Senate is considering legislation to provide a voluntary venue for addressing small copyright infringement claims. The U.S. Senate's Intellectual Property Subcommittee has commenced a series of hearings to review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. And earlier this year, Congress passed the USMCA Free Trade Agreement, which contains important provisions to strengthen copyright protections. In their book, Mr. May and Mr. Cooper suggest specific reform measures on these topics and more. Join us for this timely discussion about proposals for reforming copyright law to fit the Digital Age.]]>2959cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/capital-conversations-jeffrey-clark-assihttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/24749818Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:41:21 +0000The Federalist Society2735cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/legal-and-policy-issues-of-the-administr
Given this range of overlapping government interests, has policy making on 5G become too diffuse? Join Federalist Society members Tricia Paoletta, Lawrence Spiwak, and John Kneuer as they discuss the legal and policy issues driving the Administration’s and FCC’s 5G agenda.

Featuring:
-- Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC
-- Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
-- Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/24690737Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:00:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe rapid deployment of 5G technologies has become a stated objective of the Trump Administration that reaches across a wide range of economic and security equities. These include economic competitiveness and productivity interests traditionally...
Given this range of overlapping government interests, has policy making on 5G become too diffuse? Join Federalist Society members Tricia Paoletta, Lawrence Spiwak, and John Kneuer as they discuss the legal and policy issues driving the Administration’s and FCC’s 5G agenda.

Featuring:
-- Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC
-- Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
-- Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]]>3087cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/leaving-them-speechless-does-the-sec-sil
For nearly 50 years the SEC has settled cases in this manner even though the “rule” that purports to authorize the practice was never lawfully enacted in 1972. Join us for a litigation update forum with Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), to discuss whether this practice violates First Amendment doctrines forbidding prior restraint, content-based restrictions on speech, unconstitutional conditions, or suppresses rights of petition, rights of the public to hear truthful speech and due process. Does this silencing of truthful speech immunize the agencies from examination and criticism by the very people best situated to level such criticism? Congress itself could not lawfully enact such a rule, and the teleforum will explore why an administrative agency is exercising powers that Congress does not have.

Litigation and Regulatory Background and Disclosure: NCLA petitioned to amend the SEC’s gag rule in October of 2018, which led to a lively hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. NCLA similarly moved to amend the CFTC gag rule in July 2019. NCLA also represents Barry D. Romeril, former CFO of Xerox, who moved to set his gag aside in the Southern District.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/24260774Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:05:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyFew Americans know that when they settle a case with the SEC (or the CFTC which has a similar “rule”) that they will be forced to agree to a lifetime gag, a subject of much concern to Americans across the political and economic spectrum. Whether in...
For nearly 50 years the SEC has settled cases in this manner even though the “rule” that purports to authorize the practice was never lawfully enacted in 1972. Join us for a litigation update forum with Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), to discuss whether this practice violates First Amendment doctrines forbidding prior restraint, content-based restrictions on speech, unconstitutional conditions, or suppresses rights of petition, rights of the public to hear truthful speech and due process. Does this silencing of truthful speech immunize the agencies from examination and criticism by the very people best situated to level such criticism? Congress itself could not lawfully enact such a rule, and the teleforum will explore why an administrative agency is exercising powers that Congress does not have.

Litigation and Regulatory Background and Disclosure: NCLA petitioned to amend the SEC’s gag rule in October of 2018, which led to a lively hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. NCLA similarly moved to amend the CFTC gag rule in July 2019. NCLA also represents Barry D. Romeril, former CFO of Xerox, who moved to set his gag aside in the Southern District.]]>1965cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/updating-the-national-environmental-poliSince its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved.
The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal, if adopted, would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action.
This 90-minute teleforum discussion is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and contrasting views on the White House’s proposed NEPA reform and modernization.
Featuring:
Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
Prof. Robert Glicksman, The J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University Law School.
Mr. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Dr. Tim Male, Executive Director, Environmental Policy Innovation Center; Former Associate Director for Conservation, White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Moderator: Mr. Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/24432180Tue, 24 Mar 2020 12:00:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 10, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed revisions to its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970. CEQ has not comprehensively updated these regulations...Since its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved.
The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal, if adopted, would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action.
This 90-minute teleforum discussion is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and contrasting views on the White House’s proposed NEPA reform and modernization.
Featuring:
Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
Prof. Robert Glicksman, The J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University Law School.
Mr. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Dr. Tim Male, Executive Director, Environmental Policy Innovation Center; Former Associate Director for Conservation, White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Moderator: Mr. Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>4523environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-kahler-v-kansaFeaturing:
GianCarlo Canaparo, Legal Fellow, The Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/24433267Mon, 23 Mar 2020 19:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, held that the Due Process Clause does not require states to adopt a specific insanity defense to criminal liability. In an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Court reaffirmed its 1968...Featuring:
GianCarlo Canaparo, Legal Fellow, The Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1127cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/executive-power-v-coronavirushttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/24116003Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:20:00 +0000The Federalist Society3637federalism,federalism & separation of pow,healthcare,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/coronavirus-the-lawhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/23768404Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society2838cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/in-the-name-of-diversity
Featuring:
-- Daniel Ortner, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23844478Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe University of California and other institutions in California now require academic job applicants to complete a "contribution to diversity" statement. In some programs, an applicant without a high scoring diversity statement will be rejected...
Featuring:
-- Daniel Ortner, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>2930cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/consequences-of-municipal-litigation
This teleforum will explore the impact of this surge in municipal litigation, which is raising concerns in a number of quarters, including among state leaders. Among other concerns, statewide officials have begun to question the efficacy of piecemeal litigation of matters of statewide concern. These lawsuits also evidence the expansion of other harmful litigation trends, such as the use of contingency-fee agreements that incentivize plaintiffs’ counsel but reduce recoveries for victims. The teleforum will address these concerns, as well as the reforms that states might enact to reduce the incidence and impact of municipal litigation.

Featuring:
-- Dave Yost, Attorney General of Ohio
-- Jonathan Skrmetti, Chief Deputy Attorney General of Tennessee
-- Elbert Lin, Partner and Co-chair, Issues and Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23837682Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyCities and counties recently have been playing a more prominent role in initiating large-scale litigation against corporate defendants, claiming damages to themselves and their residents based on a variety of alleged harms. The massive litigation...
This teleforum will explore the impact of this surge in municipal litigation, which is raising concerns in a number of quarters, including among state leaders. Among other concerns, statewide officials have begun to question the efficacy of piecemeal litigation of matters of statewide concern. These lawsuits also evidence the expansion of other harmful litigation trends, such as the use of contingency-fee agreements that incentivize plaintiffs’ counsel but reduce recoveries for victims. The teleforum will address these concerns, as well as the reforms that states might enact to reduce the incidence and impact of municipal litigation.

Featuring:
-- Dave Yost, Attorney General of Ohio
-- Jonathan Skrmetti, Chief Deputy Attorney General of Tennessee
-- Elbert Lin, Partner and Co-chair, Issues and Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth]]>2558cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act-fi
Featuring:
-- Gregory T. Nojeim, Senior Counsel & Director of Freedom, Security and Technology Project, Center for Democracy & Technology
-- Kenneth L. Wainstein, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
-- Moderator: Daniel G. West, Associate, SCF Partners]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23831717Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyCongress faces a March 15 deadline to renew the statutory authority for several key provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This decision point comes at a time of heightened scrutiny, given the recent Department of Justice...
Featuring:
-- Gregory T. Nojeim, Senior Counsel & Director of Freedom, Security and Technology Project, Center for Democracy & Technology
-- Kenneth L. Wainstein, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
-- Moderator: Daniel G. West, Associate, SCF Partners]]>2954cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-u-s-v-sinFeaturing:
Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23797083Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:00:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Sineneng-Smith. At issue is "whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private...Featuring:
Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1937cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/judicial-engagement-and-rational-basis-rAdvocates for greater judicial engagement argue that courts have a constitutional obligation to apply meaningful judicial review to infringement of unenumerated “nonfundamental” rights. Judicial abdication of that responsibility, they argue, permits special interests to interfere with competition, innovation, and economic liberty.
Defenders of rational basis review maintain that judges are ill-equipped to second-guess the policy judgments of elected lawmakers, and that absent a clear violation of a constitutional protection, such determinations are better left to that branch of government subject to democratic accountability.
Ted Frank of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and Clark Neily of The Cato Institute will debate the merits of judicial engagement and rational basis review.
Featuring:
Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamiliton Lincoln Law Institute
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23794847Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:00:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyIs rational basis review the appropriate approach consistent with constitutional text, history, and good public policy, or is it an abdication of judicial responsibility? Advocates for greater judicial engagement argue that courts have a...Advocates for greater judicial engagement argue that courts have a constitutional obligation to apply meaningful judicial review to infringement of unenumerated “nonfundamental” rights. Judicial abdication of that responsibility, they argue, permits special interests to interfere with competition, innovation, and economic liberty.
Defenders of rational basis review maintain that judges are ill-equipped to second-guess the policy judgments of elected lawmakers, and that absent a clear violation of a constitutional protection, such determinations are better left to that branch of government subject to democratic accountability.
Ted Frank of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and Clark Neily of The Cato Institute will debate the merits of judicial engagement and rational basis review.
Featuring:
Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamiliton Lincoln Law Institute
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3052cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-hernandez-v-meFeaturing:
Peter M. Thomson, Member, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann L.L.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23763755Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:30:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the case of Hernandez v. Mesa, by a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was affirmed. Per Justice Alito's opinion for the Court: "We are asked in this case to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics...Featuring:
Peter M. Thomson, Member, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann L.L.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1520cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-june-mediThis teleforum features Steven Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel at Americans United for Life, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of 207 members of Congress in support of the respondent in June Medical Services v. Russo. Mr. Aden was formerly co-counsel to the Louisiana Department of Health in June Medical v. Russo.
Featuring:
Steven Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel, Americans United for Life


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23753406Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum addresses the March 4, 2020, Supreme Court oral argument in consolidated cases June Medical Services v. Russo and Russo v. June Medical Services (formerly June Medical Services v. Gee and Gee v. June Medical Services), which involve the...This teleforum features Steven Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel at Americans United for Life, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of 207 members of Congress in support of the respondent in June Medical Services v. Russo. Mr. Aden was formerly co-counsel to the Louisiana Department of Health in June Medical v. Russo.
Featuring:
Steven Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel, Americans United for Life


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2125cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/latin-america-restive-trends-and-great-p
Featuring:
-- Ryan Berg, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Foreign & Defense Policy, The American Enterprise Institute; Adjunct Professor is International Relations, The Catholic University of America
-- Brian Winter, Editor In Chief, Americas Quarterly, and Vice-President for Policy, The Américas Society/Council of the Americas
-- Moderator: James Dunlop, Of Counsel, Jones Day]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23760175Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:00:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent elections in Latin America have brought about abrupt shifts in government in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, while unexpected upheavals in Bolivia and Ecuador have reversed their respective political status quo and challenged...
Featuring:
-- Ryan Berg, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Foreign & Defense Policy, The American Enterprise Institute; Adjunct Professor is International Relations, The Catholic University of America
-- Brian Winter, Editor In Chief, Americas Quarterly, and Vice-President for Policy, The Américas Society/Council of the Americas
-- Moderator: James Dunlop, Of Counsel, Jones Day]]>3032cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-liu-v-secFeaturing:
Todd F. Braunstein, General Counsel - International, Willis Towers Watson


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23726813Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:00:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 3, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case of Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At issue is "whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable...Featuring:
Todd F. Braunstein, General Counsel - International, Willis Towers Watson


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1075cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-june-medical-seFeaturing:
Denise Harle, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Stephen l. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23717926Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum previews the upcoming March 4, 2020, Supreme Court oral argument in consolidated cases June Medical Services v. Russo and Russo v. June Medical Services (formerly June Medical Services v. Gee and Gee v. June Medical Services). These...Featuring:
Denise Harle, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Stephen l. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2480cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-seila-law
Featuring:
-- Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23725014Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:00:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a...
Featuring:
-- Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute]]>1433cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-arizona-v-california
The Court’s action raises important questions about the nature of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and the Court’s failure to provide any detailed rationale of how its jurisdiction—which is “original and exclusive”—is also discretionary. Listen to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich talk about how this decision could impact future original actions, including pending actions by Montana and Wyoming against Washington and Texas against California.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23513984Thu, 05 Mar 2020 13:01:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court recently denied Arizona’s motion for leave in Arizona v. California, which sought to challenge California’s extraterritorial taxation and seizures of out-of-state funds as unconstitutional. Specifically, California imposed a “doing...
The Court’s action raises important questions about the nature of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and the Court’s failure to provide any detailed rationale of how its jurisdiction—which is “original and exclusive”—is also discretionary. Listen to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich talk about how this decision could impact future original actions, including pending actions by Montana and Wyoming against Washington and Texas against California.

Featuring:
-- Hon. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General]]>869cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-shul
Featuring:
-- Gregory A. Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23512453Thu, 05 Mar 2020 13:00:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court decided Shular v. United States, rejecting the defense argument that Florida’s unique drug laws cannot be used to enhance a federal sentence. At issue was a federal statute known as the Armed Career Criminal Act...
Featuring:
-- Gregory A. Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck]]>1019cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-on-new-york-s-rent-sta
A lawsuit filed last year asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners—violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. New York City, New York State, and tenant advocacy groups have moved to dismiss the action.

Rent control is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Prof. Richard Epstein, of New York University School of Law, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.

Featuring:
-- Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP
-- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23510782Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:25:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyDoes New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? The law, which regulates approximately 1 million apartments in New York City, was enacted more than fifty years ago and remains in effect based on an every-three-year...
A lawsuit filed last year asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners—violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. New York City, New York State, and tenant advocacy groups have moved to dismiss the action.

Rent control is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Prof. Richard Epstein, of New York University School of Law, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.

Featuring:
-- Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP
-- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law]]>3333cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-mcmahon-v-fenves
Featuring:
-- David D. Vandenberg, Staff Attorney, Eighth Texas Court of Appeals]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23470448Wed, 04 Mar 2020 10:00:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a matter of first impression, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in the consolidated case of McMahon v. Fenves, concerning the removal of historic Civil War and World War I monuments to American veterans from the...
Featuring:
-- David D. Vandenberg, Staff Attorney, Eighth Texas Court of Appeals]]>2303cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-mcki
Featuring:
-- Oramel H. (O.H.) Skinner, Solicitor General for Arizona]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23251335Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Tuesday, in a 5-4 decision in McKinney v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark death penalty and criminal procedure opinion about the division between direct and collateral review and the jury requirements that the...
Featuring:
-- Oramel H. (O.H.) Skinner, Solicitor General for Arizona]]>926cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/update-on-foreign-intelligence-surveillahttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/23225104Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society2812cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/update-on-public-nuisance-lawsuits
Featuring:
-- Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23214667Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn AEP v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court unanimously rejected federal common law nuisance claims brought by states and cities against companies alleged to have contributed to global warming by emitting greenhouse gases. The Court held that...
Featuring:
-- Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP]]>1923cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/modernizing-the-national-environmental-pSince its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming and extends far beyond what Congress originally intended. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The purpose of NEPA is essential to sound governments. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved.
The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action.
This teleforum is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and discuss caselaw that has resulted in calls for NEPA reform and modernization. Comments on CEQ’s proposal are due March 10.
Please click here for a Summary of Key Issues and Select Cases.
Featuring:
Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University, and Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute and former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Moderator: Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica


Please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23175542Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:00:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 10, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed revisions to its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970. CEQ has not comprehensively updated these regulations...Since its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming and extends far beyond what Congress originally intended. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The purpose of NEPA is essential to sound governments. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved.
The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action.
This teleforum is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and discuss caselaw that has resulted in calls for NEPA reform and modernization. Comments on CEQ’s proposal are due March 10.
Please click here for a Summary of Key Issues and Select Cases.
Featuring:
Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University, and Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute and former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Moderator: Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica


Please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3364cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-united-states-f
Our presenters are two of the lawyers who filed amicus briefs for parties directly impacted by the case. Keith Bradley, counsel for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, is a partner with the Squire Patton Boggs firm in Denver and former counsel with the Department of Energy, where he was lead lawyer on implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. Tom Jensen is a partner with Perkins, Coie in Washington, D.C. He formerly served as the majority counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was the associate director for natural resources on the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Roger Marzulla, partner at Marzulla Law in Washington, D.C. and former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, will moderate.

Featuring:
-- Keith Bradley, Partner, Squire Patton Boggs (Denver)
-- Thomas C. Jensen, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP
-- Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/23073149Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 24, 2020 the Supreme Court will hear argument in two consolidated cases, U.S. Forest Service v. Cow Pasture River Assn. and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Assn. v. Cow Pasture River Assn., in which the Fourth Circuit invalidated the permit for...
Our presenters are two of the lawyers who filed amicus briefs for parties directly impacted by the case. Keith Bradley, counsel for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, is a partner with the Squire Patton Boggs firm in Denver and former counsel with the Department of Energy, where he was lead lawyer on implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. Tom Jensen is a partner with Perkins, Coie in Washington, D.C. He formerly served as the majority counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was the associate director for natural resources on the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Roger Marzulla, partner at Marzulla Law in Washington, D.C. and former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, will moderate.

Featuring:
-- Keith Bradley, Partner, Squire Patton Boggs (Denver)
-- Thomas C. Jensen, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP
-- Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC]]>2370cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-seila-law-llc-v
Featuring:
-- Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22925349Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a...
Featuring:
-- Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law]]>1962cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-new-definition-of-wotus-analysis-of-
Featuring:
-- Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, The Heritage Foundation
-- Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
-- John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22918513Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:00:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Trump Administration recently released its final rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. This rule, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” is the replacement for the repealed 2015 Clean Water Rule. For...
Featuring:
-- Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, The Heritage Foundation
-- Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
-- John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLC]]>3189cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-ftc-v-qualcomm_1
Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms.

Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”

While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.

This Litigation Update teleforum will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.

Featuring:
-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School
-- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22885658Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:00:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in...
Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms.

Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”

While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.

This Litigation Update teleforum will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.

Featuring:
-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School
-- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law]]>2348cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-whys-and-hows-of-commenting-on-rules
Featuring:
-- Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
-- Prof. Brian F. Mannix, Research Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22745160Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyPublic notice and comment on rulemaking is a core requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, and creates the administrative record on which any subsequent judicial review will be based. Yet many people (even people who take the trouble to vote)...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
-- Prof. Brian F. Mannix, Research Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University]]>2441cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fitzpatrick-v-frank-should-conservativeshttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/22560547Sat, 08 Feb 2020 13:00:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School and Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness debate Professor Fitzpatrick’s provocative new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press).3950cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-the-government-apple-a
Featuring:
-- Joseph V. DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22556393Sat, 08 Feb 2020 12:00:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2016 the United States Department of Justice and Apple twice went to federal court over whether Apple could be required to assist the government in unlocking cell phones used by persons under investigation for criminal conduct. One case involved...
Featuring:
-- Joseph V. DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP]]>2084cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-city-of-boise-v-martin
Featuring:
-- Prof. Andrew Hessick, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Strategy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law
-- Prof. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law
-- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22526864Fri, 07 Feb 2020 14:00:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast month, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in City of Boise v. Martin, a case out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case involved a challenge to Boise’s enforcement of its criminal law prohibiting public camping against the...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Andrew Hessick, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Strategy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law
-- Prof. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law
-- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC]]>2751cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/removal-or-acquittal-president-trumps-tr
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22444011Wed, 05 Feb 2020 08:30:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn December 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump. This is the third impeachment of a sitting U.S. President after Johnson and Clinton. John Malcolm and John Yoo discuss the ongoing Senate trial, the...
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>3544cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-rodgers-v-bryant
Featuring,
-- Anthony Sanders, Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22209050Wed, 29 Jan 2020 16:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Rodgers v. Bryant, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a statewide injunction of an anti-loitering statute. A notable dissent traced equitable jurisdiction from common-law England through to the current day, concluding that broad universal...
Featuring,
-- Anthony Sanders, Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice]]>1785cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/amazon-s-case-against-president-trump-di
Dan Kelly, Alexander Major and Franklin Turner, nationally recognized commentators and practitioners in the federal bid protest arena, will unpack what we know about Amazon’s case, and discuss the possible grounds, laws and regulations governing mandates for competitive contracting by federal agencies.

Featuring:
-- Alexander Major, Partner and Co-Leader of Government Contracts & Export Controls Practice Group, McCarter & English LLP
-- Franklin Turner, Partner and Co-Leader of Government Contracts & Export Controls Practice Group, McCarter & English LLP
-- Moderator: Daniel Kelly, Partner, Government Contracts & Export Controls Practice Group, McCarter & English LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22029478Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmazon Web Services, Inc. (Amazon) has claimed in a lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims that unlawful intervention by President Donald Trump deprived it of a $10 billion decade-long contract with the Department of Defense (DoD) for a...
Dan Kelly, Alexander Major and Franklin Turner, nationally recognized commentators and practitioners in the federal bid protest arena, will unpack what we know about Amazon’s case, and discuss the possible grounds, laws and regulations governing mandates for competitive contracting by federal agencies.

Featuring:
-- Alexander Major, Partner and Co-Leader of Government Contracts & Export Controls Practice Group, McCarter & English LLP
-- Franklin Turner, Partner and Co-Leader of Government Contracts & Export Controls Practice Group, McCarter & English LLP
-- Moderator: Daniel Kelly, Partner, Government Contracts & Export Controls Practice Group, McCarter & English LLP]]>2966cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_8
Featuring:
-- Erica Smith, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/22024768Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:00:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum addresses the January 22 Supreme Court argument in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The question in this case is whether it violates the Free Exercise Clause for a state supreme court to invalidate a school choice program,...
Featuring:
-- Erica Smith, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>1867education policy,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-wire-and-Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, will discuss the implications of the case and give his thoughts on oral argument.
Featuring:
Mr. Steve Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/21724392Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:00:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyBridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as an elaborate punishment to the mayor of Fort Lee, New...Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, will discuss the implications of the case and give his thoughts on oral argument.
Featuring:
Mr. Steve Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1258cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-another-brand-of-judicial-deference-oThis month the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether or not to take up a case that could do for Brand X deference what Kisor v. Wilkie did for Auer deference. That is, the Court could radically reduce the scope of Brand X’s application and/or clarify that Brand X deference only applies when a prior federal court did not use traditional tools of statutory analysis in interpreting the statutory provision at issue. Or, the Court could go even further and do away with Brand X deference altogether, as then-Judge Gorsuch called for when he was serving on the Tenth Circuit.
Join us for this timely discussion of Baldwin v. U.S. (cert pending).
Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director & General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/21585057Sat, 11 Jan 2020 18:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will focus on the sundry problems with so-called "Brand X deference," whose name derives from the 2005 Supreme Court decision in National Cable & Telecom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Services. The judicial deference holding in the...This month the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether or not to take up a case that could do for Brand X deference what Kisor v. Wilkie did for Auer deference. That is, the Court could radically reduce the scope of Brand X’s application and/or clarify that Brand X deference only applies when a prior federal court did not use traditional tools of statutory analysis in interpreting the statutory provision at issue. Or, the Court could go even further and do away with Brand X deference altogether, as then-Judge Gorsuch called for when he was serving on the Tenth Circuit.
Join us for this timely discussion of Baldwin v. U.S. (cert pending).
Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director & General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3061cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/mass-tort-deals-backroom-bargaining-in-m
Featuring:
-- Prof. Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Fuller E. Callaway Chair of Law, University of Georgia School of Law and author of Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation (Cambridge University Press 2019)
-- Douglas Smith, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/21587563Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:00:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyMultidistrict litigation has been the subject of much controversy in recent years. Defendants lament the pressure to settle claims that they believe frequently lack merit and the inefficiencies of modern multidistrict litigation. In her recent book,...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Fuller E. Callaway Chair of Law, University of Georgia School of Law and author of Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation (Cambridge University Press 2019)
-- Douglas Smith, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP]]>2238cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-race-to-5g-and-the-world-radio-confe
Featuring:
-- Doug Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce
-- Amb. Grace Koh, U.S. Representative and Head of Delegation to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference 2019
-- Thomas Sullivan, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
-- Moderator: Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/21557431Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:00:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyHeard about the “Race to 5G”? Wonder who are the U.S.’ leading rivals, and when and where the “race” is happening? This teleforum will provide answers and cover how outcomes from the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) affect the United States’...
Featuring:
-- Doug Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce
-- Amb. Grace Koh, U.S. Representative and Head of Delegation to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference 2019
-- Thomas Sullivan, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
-- Moderator: Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP]]>3118cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-holguin-hFeaturing:
Daniel Guarnera, Associate, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/21314142Fri, 03 Jan 2020 13:00:17 +0000The Federalist SocietyAt issue in the case of Holguin-Hernandez v. United States is whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence. Daniel Guarnera joined us to...Featuring:
Daniel Guarnera, Associate, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick]]>1338cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_7The central issue now before the Supreme Court is whether the Hernandez family can recover damages in a Bivens action for the killing of their son in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no other available remedy under federal law. Peter Thomson joined us to discuss the oral argument and offered predictions on the outcome of the case as well as its greater implications.
Featuring:
Peter M. Thomson, Special Counsel, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/21312715Fri, 03 Jan 2020 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Hernandez v. Mesa arises from a 2010 confrontation on the U.S.-Mexican border in which U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez, a teenage Mexican national. Although the FBI apparently cleared Mesa of...The central issue now before the Supreme Court is whether the Hernandez family can recover damages in a Bivens action for the killing of their son in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no other available remedy under federal law. Peter Thomson joined us to discuss the oral argument and offered predictions on the outcome of the case as well as its greater implications.
Featuring:
Peter M. Thomson, Special Counsel, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC]]>2401cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-presidents-impeachment
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20931151Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:30:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn December 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump. This is the third impeachment of a sitting U.S. President after Johnson and Clinton. As a part of their continuing conversation series, we are...
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>3683cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/trade-secrets-litigation-do-damages-awarhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/20864687Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:00:11 +0000The Federalist Society1722cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-pete
Featuring:
-- Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, The Rando Law Firm P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20857861Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Peter v. NantKwest Inc. upholding the American Rule’s presumption against shifting attorney’s fees. Under Section 145 of the Patent Act, applicants “dissat­isfied with the decision of the...
Featuring:
-- Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, The Rando Law Firm P.C.]]>1524cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/what-is-the-office-of-federal-contract-c
Featuring:
-- Craig E. Leen, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor
-- Robert J. Gaglione, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor
-- Moderator: Aram A. Gavoor, Professorial Lecturer of Law, The George Washington University Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20833045Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:00:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the scheme of the Administrative State’s employment anti-discrimination functions, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) is often overlooked. Yet, the role of the OFCCP is significant and important...
Featuring:
-- Craig E. Leen, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor
-- Robert J. Gaglione, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor
-- Moderator: Aram A. Gavoor, Professorial Lecturer of Law, The George Washington University Law School]]>3896cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_6The case presents issues of statutory interpretation, judicial review and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and agency action in light of “statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” APA Section 706(2)(C).
The question presented is: Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.
Please join our expert, Rob Rando, in a discussion of the oral argument. Mr. Rando is co-Counsel on an amicus brief filed on behalf of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (“NYIPLA”) in this case.

Featuring:

Mr. Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, the Rando Law Firm P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20801958Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (originally Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP), the Supreme Court will determine whether the decision to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”), which is argued to be time...The case presents issues of statutory interpretation, judicial review and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and agency action in light of “statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” APA Section 706(2)(C).
The question presented is: Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.
Please join our expert, Rob Rando, in a discussion of the oral argument. Mr. Rando is co-Counsel on an amicus brief filed on behalf of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (“NYIPLA”) in this case.

Featuring:

Mr. Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, the Rando Law Firm P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2419cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-people-of-the-state-of
Featuring:
-- Andrew M. Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20804118Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:00:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn late October, the People of the State of New York v. ExxonMobil Corp. trial began in the Supreme Court of the State of New York before Justice Barry Ostrager. The lawsuit was brought under New York’s Martin Act, an anti-fraud statute, and alleged...
Featuring:
-- Andrew M. Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP]]>2270cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/will-the-supreme-court-revisit-employmenFeaturing:
Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20720590Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:00:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1990, the Supreme Court startled the nation with a decision in Employment Division v. Smith that upended the long-established understanding of the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections. Rather than subjecting all government burdens...Featuring:
Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2419cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-religious-foster-care-
Featuring:
-- Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20636925Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat happens when governments try to exclude religious foster care agencies? Philadelphia put out an urgent call for 300 more foster families, then refused to send children to any foster families who work with Catholic Social Services, accusing the...
Featuring:
-- Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>2559cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/diversity-and-elimination-of-bias-cle-teElectronic Sign In: Click Here
Written Materials: Click Here
Certificate of Attendance: Click Here
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity for attorneys in New York, California, Minnesota, and Illinois to fulfill the one-hour “Diversity and Elimination of Bias” CLE requirement in those states.
On September 30 a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling rejecting discrimination claims in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170309 (D. Mass.), a case that many expect to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially redefine affirmative action law. In the case, Asian-American students allege that Harvard’s racial preferences for other minority groups discriminate against them in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The students introduced evidence that Asian enrollment at Harvard is less than half what it would be if admission was based solely on academic achievement; that Asian applicants receive the lowest scores on an amorphous “personal rating” assigned by admissions officials who have not met them; and that Harvard’s “holistic” admissions system, touted by the Supreme Court as the model for permissible racial preferences, was originally devised to exclude Jews.
The case raises the question of the meaning of “diversity” in an increasingly multi-racial era, and the continued justification for affirmative action in that era when its burden may now fall largely not on the white majority but on another historically marginalized racial minority group.
Dennis Saffran, a New York appellate attorney and Vice President of the Federalist Society Long Island Lawyers Chapter, submitted an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the National Association of Scholars and has written about the case for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. He will review the Supreme Court’s major affirmative action precedents since Bakke in 1978 and the arguments in the Harvard litigation in light of these precedents.

**Additional CLE Instructions:


Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Wednesday, December 4th, 2019.
An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20607213Mon, 09 Dec 2019 18:00:27 +0000The Federalist Society*** Please note: CLE is no longer available for this teleforum/podcast.*** Electronic Sign In: Click Here Written Materials: Click Here Certificate of Attendance: Click Here The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity for attorneys in New...Electronic Sign In: Click Here
Written Materials: Click Here
Certificate of Attendance: Click Here
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity for attorneys in New York, California, Minnesota, and Illinois to fulfill the one-hour “Diversity and Elimination of Bias” CLE requirement in those states.
On September 30 a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling rejecting discrimination claims in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170309 (D. Mass.), a case that many expect to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially redefine affirmative action law. In the case, Asian-American students allege that Harvard’s racial preferences for other minority groups discriminate against them in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The students introduced evidence that Asian enrollment at Harvard is less than half what it would be if admission was based solely on academic achievement; that Asian applicants receive the lowest scores on an amorphous “personal rating” assigned by admissions officials who have not met them; and that Harvard’s “holistic” admissions system, touted by the Supreme Court as the model for permissible racial preferences, was originally devised to exclude Jews.
The case raises the question of the meaning of “diversity” in an increasingly multi-racial era, and the continued justification for affirmative action in that era when its burden may now fall largely not on the white majority but on another historically marginalized racial minority group.
Dennis Saffran, a New York appellate attorney and Vice President of the Federalist Society Long Island Lawyers Chapter, submitted an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the National Association of Scholars and has written about the case for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. He will review the Supreme Court’s major affirmative action precedents since Bakke in 1978 and the arguments in the Harvard litigation in light of these precedents.

**Additional CLE Instructions:


Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Wednesday, December 4th, 2019.
An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.]]>2850cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_5Featuring:
Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Corbin K. Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20504490Thu, 05 Dec 2019 13:00:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act preempts state common law claims for restoration damages for pollution also addressed by an...Featuring:
Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Corbin K. Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3115cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-trump-impeachment-effort
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20512510Thu, 05 Dec 2019 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDefenders of the Constitution designed impeachment to be a rare event, especially by making the requirement for removal a two-thirds vote of the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, rather than “maladministration,” in...
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>3718cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_4Featuring:
Mr. Sy Damle, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Mr. Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20488774Wed, 04 Dec 2019 19:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn its very first case on copyright, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall was faced with the question of whether its own reports are protected by copyright, and decided in the negative. This term, the Supreme Court is called upon to...Featuring:
Mr. Sy Damle, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Mr. Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2435cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-new-york-state-https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20452946Tue, 03 Dec 2019 13:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join us to discuss the upcoming oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. Our experts will give a history of the case, discuss the salient facts, and offer predictions on how the Court...3135cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-congressional-review-act-in-an-elect
Featuring:
-- Amit Narang, Regulatory Policy Advocate, Public Citizen Inc.
-- Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
-- Moderator: Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/20174350Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:00:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2017, Congress and the President used the Congressional Review Act to disapprove 14 agency rules issued at the end of the Obama administration. As we enter another presidential election year, the CRA may soon experience another resurgence. Our...
Featuring:
-- Amit Narang, Regulatory Policy Advocate, Public Citizen Inc.
-- Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
-- Moderator: Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation]]>3130cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_3Featuring:
Glenn E. Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19994377Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:00:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for a Courthouse Steps teleforum on the oral argument for County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. Glenn Roper will examine how the arguments played out, give an indication of where the Court may be going, and discuss how the Supreme...Featuring:
Glenn E. Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1721cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-non-citizen-votinghttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19992479Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:00:20 +0000The Federalist Society2900cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-allen-v-cFeaturing:

Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Moderator: Kevin R. Amer, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Regulatory Transparency Project has created an entertaining and informative video on this case consider clicking above and checking it out!]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19977483Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe discovery of the dread pirate Blackbeard’s flagship, Queen Anne’s Revenge, off the North Carolina coast, began an unlikely chain of events which leads to the Supreme Court reconsidering whether and under what circumstances Congress may...Featuring:

Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Moderator: Kevin R. Amer, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Regulatory Transparency Project has created an entertaining and informative video on this case consider clicking above and checking it out!]]>2424cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/how-texas-killed-eeoc-guidance-in-the-fi
Featuring:
-- Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director & General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19975861Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:00:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis past August the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant administrative law opinion that has thus far drawn too little attention. The case involved guidance the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued in 2012...
Featuring:
-- Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director & General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC]]>2413cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-kansas-v-Featuring:
Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19869664Tue, 05 Nov 2019 14:00:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Kansas v. Glover, a state police officer pulled a Charles Glover Jr. over after running a registration check on the vehicle and finding that Charles Glover Jr had a revoked drivers license. The police officer assumed that Charles Glover was the...Featuring:
Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2784cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-religious-schools-head
Featuring:
-- Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19871726Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:00:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Ninth Circuit recently split from seven other Circuits in deciding a First Amendment question of cardinal importance: should the church choose who will teach religion to children in church schools, or should the state? Our Lady of Guadalupe School...
Featuring:
-- Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>1867cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-it-transparency-or-is-it-censorship-wErin Chlopak of the Campaign Legal Center and Tyler Martinez of the Institute for Free Speech, who authored amicus briefs for the appellants and appellees, respectively, will offer first impressions of the argument.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19809660Fri, 01 Nov 2019 20:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Washington Post v. McManus, various newspapers brought suit to strike down a new Maryland law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The statute, aimed at Russian online election interference, requires media outlets to collect and make...Erin Chlopak of the Campaign Legal Center and Tyler Martinez of the Institute for Free Speech, who authored amicus briefs for the appellants and appellees, respectively, will offer first impressions of the argument.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1796cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-teleforum-count_1Featuring:
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Glenn E. Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19808781Fri, 01 Nov 2019 19:02:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe oral argument for County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund will be heard before the Supreme Court on November 6, 2019. The issue at hand is: "Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are...Featuring:
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Glenn E. Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3124administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,litigation,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-teleforum-countFeaturing:
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Glenn E. Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19808744Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe oral argument for County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund will be heard before the Supreme Court on November 6, 2019. The issue at hand is: "Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are...Featuring:
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Glenn E. Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3124cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-future-of-administrative-records-aft
Featuring:
-- Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Professorial Lecturer of Law, The George Washington University Law School
-- Brett A. Shumate, Partner, Jones Day
-- Moderator: Prof. Adam J. White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director of The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19790708Thu, 31 Oct 2019 13:00:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyUntil recently, the domain of administrative records under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 was viewed by most as a peripheral issue to litigation challenging executive branch actions. The landscape shifted in June 2019 when the Supreme Court...
Featuring:
-- Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Professorial Lecturer of Law, The George Washington University Law School
-- Brett A. Shumate, Partner, Jones Day
-- Moderator: Prof. Adam J. White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director of The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3404cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/impeachment-and-presidential-powers
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19755234Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:00:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Malcolm and John Yoo joined us to discuss developments on impeachment: the latest on the Ukraine investigation; the procedures for the House investigation; whether the allegations meet the standards for high crimes and misdemeanors; the White...
Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law]]>3363cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/legal-challenges-to-legislative-prayer
Featuring:
-- Thomas Hungar, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19738293Mon, 28 Oct 2019 17:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyLegal challenges to legislative prayer continue to play out in the courts. Most recently, in Barker v. Conroy, Williamson v. Brevard County, and Speaker v. Fields, atheists have brought a series of Establishment Clause actions against prayer...
Featuring:
-- Thomas Hungar, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP]]>2065cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/isis-today-prisoners-escapees-returnees-
Featuring:
-- Seamus Hughes, Deputy Director, Program on Extremism, George Washington University
-- Dr. Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown Chair; Director, Transnational Threats Project; and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
-- Robin Simcox, Margaret Thatcher Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
-- Moderator: Christopher K. Harnisch, Deputy Coordinator for Countering Violent Extremism, United States Department of State]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19692499Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat is the current status of ISIS worldwide? Some European countries have cancelled ISIS-travelers’ citizenship and refuse to repatriate fighters for prosecution. Terror trials in Western judicial systems face formidable procedural and evidentiary...
Featuring:
-- Seamus Hughes, Deputy Director, Program on Extremism, George Washington University
-- Dr. Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown Chair; Director, Transnational Threats Project; and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
-- Robin Simcox, Margaret Thatcher Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
-- Moderator: Christopher K. Harnisch, Deputy Coordinator for Countering Violent Extremism, United States Department of State]]>3136cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supply-chain-issues-huawei-and-ztehttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19654968Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:00:13 +0000The Federalist Society1391cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-comcast-corp-v-https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19633190Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:00:42 +0000The Federalist Society1336cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/compelled-speech-or-public-accommodationThe majority opinion rules for the business owners on all three issues presented, holding that (1) the plaintiffs had standing to bring pre-enforcement claims; and (2) the city's anti-discrimination ordinance, as applied to the plaintiffs' calligraphy services in connection with gay weddings, both (a) violates the free speech clause in the Arizona constitution and (b) fails to satisfy the test established by Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Amendment ("FERA," i.e., the Arizona equivalent of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or "RFRA").
There were five separate opinions. Justice Bolick authored a separate concurrence focused on the interplay between the federal and state constitutional rights at issue. Chief Justice Bales’s opinion was joined by Justice Timmer and Judge Staring (who sat by designation); this primary dissent essentially saying that the Court struck the wrong balance between liberty (for the calligraphers) and equality (for wedding celebrants). Justice Timmer's opinion says, in short, that the burden on the calligrapher plaintiffs appears to be non-substantial and therefore the Court's FERA/RFRA analysis is incorrect. Judge Staring's opinion appears to accept the majority's position on the "substantial burden" issues, without accepting the balance of its FERA/RFRA analysis.
Brush & Nib could be a watershed decision for similarly situated plaintiffs nationally. The majority decision is the first of its kind, as plaintiffs in other states (NM, NY, WA) had previously failed to win majority support for their theories. The majority in this decision seems conscious of that fact. Their analysis is extensive, they make alternative legal findings to support their conclusions (i.e., although they could have decided on speech grounds alone, they additionally ruled for the plaintiffs on FERA/RFRA grounds), and addressed the decisions of other state courts.
Jon Scruggs from the Alliance Defending Freedom argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on behalf of the business owners. Eric Fraser argued on behalf of the City of Phoenix. They will join us to break down the opinions and comment on the implications moving forward.
Featuring:
Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
Eric M. Fraser, Partner, Osborn Maledon
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer M. Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19616646Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:00:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn September 16, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision in Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix. The case pitted a city anti-discrimination ordinance against a business offering hand-drawn invitations and paintings for various...The majority opinion rules for the business owners on all three issues presented, holding that (1) the plaintiffs had standing to bring pre-enforcement claims; and (2) the city's anti-discrimination ordinance, as applied to the plaintiffs' calligraphy services in connection with gay weddings, both (a) violates the free speech clause in the Arizona constitution and (b) fails to satisfy the test established by Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Amendment ("FERA," i.e., the Arizona equivalent of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or "RFRA").
There were five separate opinions. Justice Bolick authored a separate concurrence focused on the interplay between the federal and state constitutional rights at issue. Chief Justice Bales’s opinion was joined by Justice Timmer and Judge Staring (who sat by designation); this primary dissent essentially saying that the Court struck the wrong balance between liberty (for the calligraphers) and equality (for wedding celebrants). Justice Timmer's opinion says, in short, that the burden on the calligrapher plaintiffs appears to be non-substantial and therefore the Court's FERA/RFRA analysis is incorrect. Judge Staring's opinion appears to accept the majority's position on the "substantial burden" issues, without accepting the balance of its FERA/RFRA analysis.
Brush & Nib could be a watershed decision for similarly situated plaintiffs nationally. The majority decision is the first of its kind, as plaintiffs in other states (NM, NY, WA) had previously failed to win majority support for their theories. The majority in this decision seems conscious of that fact. Their analysis is extensive, they make alternative legal findings to support their conclusions (i.e., although they could have decided on speech grounds alone, they additionally ruled for the plaintiffs on FERA/RFRA grounds), and addressed the decisions of other state courts.
Jon Scruggs from the Alliance Defending Freedom argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on behalf of the business owners. Eric Fraser argued on behalf of the City of Phoenix. They will join us to break down the opinions and comment on the implications moving forward.
Featuring:
Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
Eric M. Fraser, Partner, Osborn Maledon
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer M. Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3481cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_2https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19617266Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:05:17 +0000The Federalist Society797cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum_1https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19540498Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:00:57 +0000The Federalist Society1177cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-title-viiFeaturing:
John J. Bursch, Owner, Bursch Law PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19464154Fri, 11 Oct 2019 19:00:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a trio of Title VII cases asking whether discrimination because of “sex” could include differential treatment based on sexual orientation (Zarda and Bostock) or transgender status...Featuring:
John J. Bursch, Owner, Bursch Law PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3392cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-the-capitalism-paradox-how-chttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19464646Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:03:00 +0000The Federalist Society2628cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/spectrum-warshttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19464258Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:00:10 +0000The Federalist Society3205cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/vertical-integration-in-broadcasting-a-chttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19444462Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:00:03 +0000The Federalist Society3405cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-gundy-v-u-sFeaturing:
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19438283Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:00:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast term in Gundy v. U.S., without Justice Kavanaugh the Court was split between a restoration of a substantial limitation on the administrative state and the status quo. In this case, as Justice Gorsuch described it, Congress gave “the...Featuring:
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2359cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/rethinking-probation-parole-how-much-suphttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19440760Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:00:03 +0000The Federalist Society2925cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/update-on-climate-change-litigationhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19427050Wed, 09 Oct 2019 15:00:37 +0000The Federalist Society1947cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/october-term-2019-2020-long-conferenceFeaturing:
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute
Prof. David F. Forte, Garwood Visiting Professor and Visiting Fellow, James Madison Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Mr. Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19412858Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court held its “Long Conference” on Tuesday, October 1. That’s where it considers all the petitions for review that had been filed while it was on summer recess. Typically, a good portion of the Court’s docket for...Featuring:
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute
Prof. David F. Forte, Garwood Visiting Professor and Visiting Fellow, James Madison Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Mr. Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>3203supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforumContrastingly, the state of Kansas asserts that any differences between its relatively unique approach and a more typical insanity defense based on knowing the difference between right and wrong are practically irrelevant in Kahler’s case because under any of these tests, he would not have been able to prove that he was insane.
In Ramos v. Louisiana, the plaintiff Ramos was arrested, tried, and convicted of second-degree murder in Louisiana with a non-unanimous jury (10-2 conviction). Consequently, he received life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Because Louisiana state law only requires ten jurors to enter a guilty verdict, his conviction stood. The plaintiff repealed the case and the appellate court affirmed the previous decision. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied his next appeal. The question the Supreme Court will be addressing is whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict at the state level.
Featuring:
Giancarlo Canaparo, Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19409031Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:30:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments for Kahler v. Kansas and Ramos v. Louisiana on Monday, October 7, 2019. The issue in Kahler v. Kansas, is whether a state can abolish the insanity defense, without infringing on an individual’s...Contrastingly, the state of Kansas asserts that any differences between its relatively unique approach and a more typical insanity defense based on knowing the difference between right and wrong are practically irrelevant in Kahler’s case because under any of these tests, he would not have been able to prove that he was insane.
In Ramos v. Louisiana, the plaintiff Ramos was arrested, tried, and convicted of second-degree murder in Louisiana with a non-unanimous jury (10-2 conviction). Consequently, he received life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Because Louisiana state law only requires ten jurors to enter a guilty verdict, his conviction stood. The plaintiff repealed the case and the appellate court affirmed the previous decision. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied his next appeal. The question the Supreme Court will be addressing is whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict at the state level.
Featuring:
Giancarlo Canaparo, Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation]]>1544cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ftc-s-21st-century-hearings-paving-the-whttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19408647Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:00:19 +0000The Federalist Society3017cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/next-steps-in-the-net-neutrality-saga-mohttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19391922Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:00:26 +0000The Federalist Society2943cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-klein-v-oregon-bureau-Featuring:
Adam Gustafson, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19356195Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:00:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyMelissa and Aaron Klein, of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Oregon, were ordered to pay $135,000 in emotional damages for declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same sex wedding because of their religious convictions. This June, the U.S....Featuring:
Adam Gustafson, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1983cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-stakes-reinstating-afghanistan-withdhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19343989Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society3148cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ethics-cle-teleforum-model-rule-8-4-g-up_1CLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded.

Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket, and also Here: Link
Certificate of Attendance: Link
Course Time 2:55-3:55 presentation, 3:55-4:00, Live Audience Q&A
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.
Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2019 and beyond.
In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”
The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).
To date, many states have rejected the rule, including Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety.
In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the potential implications of Model Rule 8.4(g) on an attorney's ethical responsibiliities, as well as potential constitutional problems with Model Rule 8.4(g) that could lead the rule not being adopted as widely as some of the others. The debate over Model Rule 8.4(g) will shine light on Ethical Responsibilities for all attorneys, even attorneys whose states have only partially adopted the rule.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston

Call begins at 2:55 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.
One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*
$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)
Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.
Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.**No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit.
CLE Credit is Not Gaurenteed From All States, but All States That Attorneys Request, Will Be Applied To.
*Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit is not guaranteed, as the decision to accredit the course is made by each individual state bar, but all states that attorneys request will be applied to.
**Additional CLE Instructions:

Please check your confirmation email for the link to the ticket, where there will be a drop box link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 2:55 p.m. ET.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be provided with your confirmation email, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19309759Tue, 01 Oct 2019 15:00:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Teleforum CLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded. Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket, and also Here: Link...CLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded.

Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket, and also Here: Link
Certificate of Attendance: Link
Course Time 2:55-3:55 presentation, 3:55-4:00, Live Audience Q&A
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.
Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2019 and beyond.
In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”
The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).
To date, many states have rejected the rule, including Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety.
In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the potential implications of Model Rule 8.4(g) on an attorney's ethical responsibiliities, as well as potential constitutional problems with Model Rule 8.4(g) that could lead the rule not being adopted as widely as some of the others. The debate over Model Rule 8.4(g) will shine light on Ethical Responsibilities for all attorneys, even attorneys whose states have only partially adopted the rule.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston

Call begins at 2:55 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.
One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*
$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)
Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.
Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.**No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit.
CLE Credit is Not Gaurenteed From All States, but All States That Attorneys Request, Will Be Applied To.
*Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit...]]>2969cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-ftc-v-qualcommhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19312083Tue, 01 Oct 2019 12:00:48 +0000The Federalist Society2863cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-prisoners-of-politics-breakihttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19308856Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:00:31 +0000The Federalist Society3362cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/recent-strains-on-cooperative-federalismhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19218903Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:00:59 +0000The Federalist Society2609cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/multi-district-litigation-proceedings-mdhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19202739Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:00:42 +0000The Federalist Society2515litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/independent-contractor-or-employee-somethttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19131796Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society1909cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-the-jungle-grows-back-americhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19131083Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society3060international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/agency-staff-regulatory-guidance
Panelists:
Moderator: Paul Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners
Barry Barbash, Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Buddy Donohue, Mutual Fund Independent Director
Brian Rubin, Partner, Eversheds Sutherland]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19119658Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:00:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyAgency staff regulatory guidance, speeches, and settled enforcement actions can be helpful to the regulated community when seeking to comply with the law; but when agencies use those statements as if they are the law, thereby bypassing the...
Panelists:
Moderator: Paul Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners
Barry Barbash, Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Buddy Donohue, Mutual Fund Independent Director
Brian Rubin, Partner, Eversheds Sutherland]]>3428administrative law & regulatio,financial services & e-commerc,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/free-speech-and-criminal-intenthttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19118513Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:00:23 +0000The Federalist Society3114cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/red-flag-lawshttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19090741Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:00:19 +0000The Federalist Society3423cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/james-comey-andrew-mccabe-and-the-officehttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19070513Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society3492cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/tragedy-in-el-paso-is-this-domestic-terrhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19069567Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:05:45 +0000The Federalist Society3435international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-equal-employment-opportunity-commisshttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/19069299Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:00:40 +0000The Federalist Society3193administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment law,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/criminal-justice-reformhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/18940491Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:00:32 +0000The Federalist Society1825cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/southern-poverty-law-center-controversy
Featuring:
-- Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel, sued Guidestar for branding LC an anti-LGBTQ hate group based upon SPLC designation; lost appeal in 4th Circuit based on Lanham Act analysis.
-- Robert Muise, American Freedom Law Center, currently suing State of Michigan attorney general office for establishing hate unit to target SPLC-named groups, including AFLC
-- Muhammud Rahim, Quilliam, settled with SPLC for 3.4M after threatened defamation suit for falsely naming Maajid Nawaz (reformist Muslim) a hater.
-- Justin Danhof, National Center for Public Policy Research, responding to SPLC in the corporate context
-- Moderator: Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defending Freedom, attorney on the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation team -- and many other freedom of conscience matters.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18931714Tue, 27 Aug 2019 18:35:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Southern Poverty Law Center (501(c)(3)) and SPLC Action Fund (reportedly processing 501(c)(4) application) potentially comprise America’s most powerful and well-resourced public interest and advocacy operation. SPLC describes its mission as...
Featuring:
-- Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel, sued Guidestar for branding LC an anti-LGBTQ hate group based upon SPLC designation; lost appeal in 4th Circuit based on Lanham Act analysis.
-- Robert Muise, American Freedom Law Center, currently suing State of Michigan attorney general office for establishing hate unit to target SPLC-named groups, including AFLC
-- Muhammud Rahim, Quilliam, settled with SPLC for 3.4M after threatened defamation suit for falsely naming Maajid Nawaz (reformist Muslim) a hater.
-- Justin Danhof, National Center for Public Policy Research, responding to SPLC in the corporate context
-- Moderator: Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defending Freedom, attorney on the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation team -- and many other freedom of conscience matters.]]>3354cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/2019-u-s-supreme-court-criminal-law-rounFeaturing:
Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Dean Mazzone, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Massachusetts Attorney General]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18879652Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:00:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe 2018-2019 Supreme Court term saw the continued evolution of Criminal Law Jurisprudence. Over a dozen cases were decided that will serve to shape and guide criminal law jurisprudence moving forward, on both the State and Federal level. Several...Featuring:
Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Dean Mazzone, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Massachusetts Attorney General]]>2771civil rights,criminal law & procedure,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/endangered-species-act-regulations-new-ahttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/18880004Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:00:30 +0000The Federalist Society3001administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/mass-tort-bankruptcy-casesFeaturing:
Prof. Ralph Brubaker, Carl L. Vacketta Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Prof. S. Todd Brown, Professor of Law and the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, University at Buffalo School of Law
Dan Prieto, Partner, DLA Piper Global Law Firm

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18838390Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:44:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyCompanies are increasingly resorting to the bankruptcy system to resolve mass tort litigation. Recent examples include bankruptcies filed by defendants facing significant talc and opioid-related litigation. In addition, the Department of Justice and...Featuring:
Prof. Ralph Brubaker, Carl L. Vacketta Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Prof. S. Todd Brown, Professor of Law and the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, University at Buffalo School of Law
Dan Prieto, Partner, DLA Piper Global Law Firm

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2745litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-authorization-for-use-of-military-fo_1John Bellinger and John Yoo, who both worked on the AUMF’s original passage, will discuss the current controversies over the AUMF.
Featuring:
John B. Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18837204Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:48:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyNearly 18 years after its overwhelming enactment by Congress, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) continues to generate controversy. Presidents Bush and Obama have invoked the AUMF as legal authority for significant military...John Bellinger and John Yoo, who both worked on the AUMF’s original passage, will discuss the current controversies over the AUMF.
Featuring:
John B. Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3442international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/citizens-secret-recording-and-the-first-Featuring:

Steve Klein, Partner, Statecraft PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18835186Fri, 16 Aug 2019 14:00:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor over half a century, federal law and most states have regulated secretly recording speech over phone lines and in person by the government and private citizens. Recently, some of the most restrictive of these laws have been struck down on First...Featuring:

Steve Klein, Partner, Statecraft PLLC]]>2422free speech & election law,security & privacycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-authorization-for-use-of-military-fo
John Bellinger and John Yoo, who both worked on the AUMF original passage, will discuss the current controversies over the AUMF.

Featuring:
- John B. Bellinger, Partner, Arnold; Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18837203Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:30:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyNearly 18 years after its overwhelming enactment by Congress, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) continues to generate controversy. Presidents Bush and Obama have invoked the AUMF as legal authority for significant military...
John Bellinger and John Yoo, who both worked on the AUMF original passage, will discuss the current controversies over the AUMF.

Featuring:
- John B. Bellinger, Partner, Arnold; Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3442international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-archdiocese-of-washingFeaturing:
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18766694Thu, 08 Aug 2019 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) prohibits religious advertisements on Metro buses, including the Archdiocese’s “Find the Perfect Gift” Christmas advertising campaign. Does this no-religious-speech policy...Featuring:
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2007religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/compulsory-evictions-and-crime-free-housFeaturing:
Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18765466Thu, 08 Aug 2019 13:00:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyFifteen years ago, the Supreme Court upheld "one-strike" policies that allowed public-housing authorities to evict entire families if one member of the household committed a crime. Since then, municipalities across the country have increasingly...Featuring:
Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2629environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-affordable-clean-energy-ace-ruleFeaturing:
Michael J. Nasi, Partner, Jackson Walker (Austin)
Thomas A. Lorenzen, Partner, Crowell & Moring (Washington, D.C.)


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18756026Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe EPA released the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule in June 2019. The ACE Rule replaces the 2015 Clean Power Plan and establishes emissions guidelines for states to utilize when crafting plans to limit carbon dioxide at existing coal-fired...Featuring:
Michael J. Nasi, Partner, Jackson Walker (Austin)
Thomas A. Lorenzen, Partner, Crowell & Moring (Washington, D.C.)


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3198environmental & energy law,environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/compelled-decryptionFeaturing:
Prof. Orin Kerr, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Prof. Laurent Sacharoff, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18752428Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:00:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyEncryption, once the domain of intelligence operatives, is now ubiquitous. Nearly every personal electronic device can now be encrypted with ciphers unbreakable by the most technologically advanced governments. This trend poses particular challenges...Featuring:
Prof. Orin Kerr, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Prof. Laurent Sacharoff, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville]]>3171cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-roman-catholic-archdioFeaturing:
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18685217Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe issue at hand in the case of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan Puerto Rico v. Feliciano is whether courts in Puerto Rico can confiscate assets of Catholic entities to fulfill pension obligations to current and former Catholic school...Featuring:
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1872religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-a-covert-action-reagan-the-cDr. Michael Ledeen served in the Reagan administration and is an analyst and commentator on the Iranian peoples’ efforts to achieve a democratic system of government. Ledeen will interview Dr. Jones about the findings of his book and will inquire as to what comparisons may exist between the Polish Solidarity movement and the Iranian peoples’ struggle for freedom.
Featuring:
Dr. Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown Chair; Director, Transnational Threats Project; and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and author, A Covert Action: Reagan, the CIA, and the Cold War Struggle in Poland
Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18678459Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his book, A Covert Action: Reagan, the CIA, and the Cold War Struggle in Poland, Dr. Seth Jones examines the Reagan administration’s efforts during the Cold War to aid Poland’s Solidarity movement. Reagan used the CIA to support...Dr. Michael Ledeen served in the Reagan administration and is an analyst and commentator on the Iranian peoples’ efforts to achieve a democratic system of government. Ledeen will interview Dr. Jones about the findings of his book and will inquire as to what comparisons may exist between the Polish Solidarity movement and the Iranian peoples’ struggle for freedom.
Featuring:
Dr. Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown Chair; Director, Transnational Threats Project; and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and author, A Covert Action: Reagan, the CIA, and the Cold War Struggle in Poland
Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3062international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/americans-with-disabilities-act-litigatiPlaintiffs attorneys have been aggressive in enforcing the ADA against all types of physical businesses for years. And now we are seeing a new frontier of litigation - websites. Banks, hotels, service providers, and retailers of all types are beginning to see lawsuits alleging their websites are not accessible to the disabled.
Karen Harned will provide the background on this new trend in ADA litigation, the current state of the law, and highlight a case the Supreme Court is being asked to take this next term on the issue.
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18630691Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public accommodations be accessible to the disabled community. Since its enactment in 1991, it has been understood that any store, restaurant, theater, hotel facility, school, or other building...Plaintiffs attorneys have been aggressive in enforcing the ADA against all types of physical businesses for years. And now we are seeing a new frontier of litigation - websites. Banks, hotels, service providers, and retailers of all types are beginning to see lawsuits alleging their websites are not accessible to the disabled.
Karen Harned will provide the background on this new trend in ADA litigation, the current state of the law, and highlight a case the Supreme Court is being asked to take this next term on the issue.
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1262labor & employment law,regulatory transparency projec,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/military-interrogation-suppressionFeaturing:
James Baehr, General Counsel, Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Prof. Jeffrey Addicott, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Terrorism Law, St. Mary's University School of Law
Prof. Stephen l. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Please note: During this call one of our speakers had a notably poor phone connection. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause when listening to the podcast.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18629566Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyShould statements gathered through enhanced interrogation techniques be suppressed in military commission trials of accused terrorists? Are statements made later to federal investigators cured of any taint by being made in a different place and...Featuring:
James Baehr, General Counsel, Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Prof. Jeffrey Addicott, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Terrorism Law, St. Mary's University School of Law
Prof. Stephen l. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Please note: During this call one of our speakers had a notably poor phone connection. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause when listening to the podcast.]]>2101criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-risk-corridors-litigation-how-risky-Featuring:Jason A. Levine, Partner, Commercial and Business Litigation, Vinson & Elkins LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18591888Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyThree consolidated cases now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court have the potential to re-set the relationship between the federal government and its private partners. In the “risk corridors” litigation, health insurers that...Featuring:Jason A. Levine, Partner, Commercial and Business Litigation, Vinson & Elkins LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2257litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/venezuela-the-road-forwardFeaturing:
Ambassador Roger Noriega, former US Ambassador to the OAS and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Rodrigo Diamanti, president of "Un Mundo Sin Mordaza” (A World Without Censorship)
Col. José Gustavo Arocha, exiled military officer and political analyst
Moderator: Grover Joseph Rees, writer, advocate, and former United States Ambassador to East Timor


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18572009Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlthough the de facto government of Venezuela headed by Nicolas Maduro regime is no longer recognized as legitimate by the Organization of American States (OAS) or by most democratic nations around the world, it clings to power with the support of the...Featuring:
Ambassador Roger Noriega, former US Ambassador to the OAS and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Rodrigo Diamanti, president of "Un Mundo Sin Mordaza” (A World Without Censorship)
Col. José Gustavo Arocha, exiled military officer and political analyst
Moderator: Grover Joseph Rees, writer, advocate, and former United States Ambassador to East Timor


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3195international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-iancu-v-brunetOn June 24, the Supreme Court affirmed 6-3, holding that the Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment. Thomas Berry, who contributed to an interesting and entertaining amicus brief submitted by the CATO Institute, will share his thoughts on the decision and its implications on free speech and intellectual property.
Featuring:
Thomas Berry, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18555025Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRemember “The Slants,” the Asian-American rock band who were denied a trademark because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) thought the band’s name was “disparaging”? In Matal v. Tam (2017), the Supreme Court...On June 24, the Supreme Court affirmed 6-3, holding that the Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment. Thomas Berry, who contributed to an interesting and entertaining amicus brief submitted by the CATO Institute, will share his thoughts on the decision and its implications on free speech and intellectual property.
Featuring:
Thomas Berry, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2436free speech & election law,intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-tennMichael Bindas, the lead counsel for one of the respondents, will discuss the opinion and the dissent, written by Justice Gorsuch.
Featuring:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18523395Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 26, 2019, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, declared that two-year durational residency requirements for obtaining a retail liquor license are unconstitutional. In a decision written by Justice Alito, the Court held that it is a violation...Michael Bindas, the lead counsel for one of the respondents, will discuss the opinion and the dissent, written by Justice Gorsuch.
Featuring:
Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2517litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-the-gerrymandeFeaturing:
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law
Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18516285Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:00:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 27, the Supreme Court decided several redistricting cases in Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al. The decision was 5-4, with the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. In it, he writes that "excessive partisanship in districting leads to...Featuring:
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law
Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3038free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-the-_1The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that punitive damages are not available in an unseaworthiness cause of action. Don Haycraft will analyze the opinion and the dissent, written by Justice Ginsberg.
Featuring:
Don Haycraft, Of Counsel, Liskow & Lewis

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18512065Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:00:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, decided The Dutra Group v. Batterton, which answered the question, can a Jones Act seaman recover punitive damages on his or her unseaworthiness claim? The plaintiff, a...The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that punitive damages are not available in an unseaworthiness cause of action. Don Haycraft will analyze the opinion and the dissent, written by Justice Ginsberg.
Featuring:
Don Haycraft, Of Counsel, Liskow & Lewis

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1774international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-the-census-citChief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion (5-4) which claimed Secretary Ross did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act by reintroducing a citizenship question on the 2020 census, however because of the discrepancy between the Department of Commerce's evidence and the Secretary's explanation for his decision, the case is sent in part back to the District Court.
Please join us as our expert shares his reaction to and analysis on the decision.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18512264Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:15:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 27, the Supreme Court decided Department of Commerce v. New York, the legal challenge arising from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to ask about the citizenship of census respondents. The case presents three questions: First,...Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion (5-4) which claimed Secretary Ross did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act by reintroducing a citizenship question on the 2020 census, however because of the discrepancy between the Department of Commerce's evidence and the Secretary's explanation for his decision, the case is sent in part back to the District Court.
Please join us as our expert shares his reaction to and analysis on the decision.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2687federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/judicial-deference-determined-kisor-v-wiKaren Harned and Stephen Vaden will join us today to discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications -- including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)).
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center
Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18453785Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis morning the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452...Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden will join us today to discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications -- including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)).
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center
Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3444administrative law & regulatio,environmental law & property r,litigation,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/one-year-later-impact-of-encino-motorcarFeaturing:
Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18401503Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:00:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyJust over a year ago, in a case involving an obscure car dealership exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirement, the Supreme Court established a new standard for interpretation of FLSA exemptions. Citing Justice...Featuring:
Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1523labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-yim-v-city-of-seattleYim II involves a substantive due process challenge to Seattle’s “fair chance housing ordinance,” which declares it unlawful for a landlord to inquire into an applicant’s criminal history or deny an application based on the applicant’s criminal history. At issue there is Washington’s due process test, which asks, in part, whether a law is unduly oppressive on individual rights. On summary judgment, the City argued that the unduly oppressive test is an anachronism that had been impliedly overruled by Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wn.2d 208 (2006). The Washington Supreme Court took review of this issue as part of a certified question regarding the proper standard of review in a due process claim involving a deprivation of a property right.
Featuring:
Ethan W. Blevins, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Brian T. Hodges, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18391066Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 11, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court heard back-to-back arguments in a pair of cases entitled, Yim v. City of Seattle (Yim I and Yim II). At issue are two Seattle ordinances that significantly alter the way residential landlords are...Yim II involves a substantive due process challenge to Seattle’s “fair chance housing ordinance,” which declares it unlawful for a landlord to inquire into an applicant’s criminal history or deny an application based on the applicant’s criminal history. At issue there is Washington’s due process test, which asks, in part, whether a law is unduly oppressive on individual rights. On summary judgment, the City argued that the unduly oppressive test is an anachronism that had been impliedly overruled by Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wn.2d 208 (2006). The Washington Supreme Court took review of this issue as part of a certified question regarding the proper standard of review in a due process claim involving a deprivation of a property right.
Featuring:
Ethan W. Blevins, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Brian T. Hodges, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2311environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-the-Featuring:
Christopher DiPompeo, Partner, Jones Day


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18391122Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor decades, the law surrounding the constitutionality of monuments and memorials has been in disarray, primarily as a result of the application, or, as it turns out, misapplication of the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman. On...Featuring:
Christopher DiPompeo, Partner, Jones Day


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3114religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/gundy-v-united-states-revisiting-the-nonThis teleforum will examine the Court’s decision in Gundy, dissect the various viewpoints that the justices presented, and explore questions such as:

Will the 4-1-3 decision here leave the status quo intact or embolden lower courts to identify more nondelegation problems?
Why didn’t the Court order new oral argument in the case with Justice Kavanaugh participating this time?
Will Congress view this outcome as an invitation to delegate more decisions about the scope of the criminal law to the Attorney General?
Do Justice Alito’s concurrence and the strong dissent from Justice Gorsuch (joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) signal that the nondelegation doctrine will soon be revived?

Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18389121Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gundy v. United States disappointed some observers who were hoping that the Court would use the case to reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine. Instead, the Court upheld the federal government’s...This teleforum will examine the Court’s decision in Gundy, dissect the various viewpoints that the justices presented, and explore questions such as:

Will the 4-1-3 decision here leave the status quo intact or embolden lower courts to identify more nondelegation problems?
Why didn’t the Court order new oral argument in the case with Justice Kavanaugh participating this time?
Will Congress view this outcome as an invitation to delegate more decisions about the scope of the criminal law to the Attorney General?
Do Justice Alito’s concurrence and the strong dissent from Justice Gorsuch (joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) signal that the nondelegation doctrine will soon be revived?

Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2119administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-knick-v-townshMrs. Rose Mary Knick owns roughly 40 acres in rural Scott Township in Pennsylvania. At the behest of some local activists the township passed an ordinance that allows members of the public to trespass across her property to visit some large stones that the activists claim are colonial-era gravestones. Mrs. Knick had no legal way to stop this invasion of her property – short of suing for a taking. When she tried to sue in state court she was rebuffed because she hadn’t yet been fined for not allowing the trespass. When she next tried to sue in federal court for a taking, she was again rebuffed, that time because of Williamson County.
The Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania to vacate the judgment of the Third Circuit and remand the case. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion states, "We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities. But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under §1983 at that time."
Please join us as our featured speakers review this decision and its implications.
Featuring:
James S. Burling, Vice President for Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18379229Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:30:02 +0000The Federalist SocietySince the 1985 Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank decision, property owners have been able to file claims against local government for takings only in state court. And once there, any decision is res judicata to any subsequent federal action. This...Mrs. Rose Mary Knick owns roughly 40 acres in rural Scott Township in Pennsylvania. At the behest of some local activists the township passed an ordinance that allows members of the public to trespass across her property to visit some large stones that the activists claim are colonial-era gravestones. Mrs. Knick had no legal way to stop this invasion of her property – short of suing for a taking. When she tried to sue in state court she was rebuffed because she hadn’t yet been fined for not allowing the trespass. When she next tried to sue in federal court for a taking, she was again rebuffed, that time because of Williamson County.
The Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania to vacate the judgment of the Third Circuit and remand the case. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion states, "We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities. But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under §1983 at that time."
Please join us as our featured speakers review this decision and its implications.
Featuring:
James S. Burling, Vice President for Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2813environmental law & property r,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-possess-now-pay-later-constitutional-Featuring:
Chris Johns, Partner, Johns & Counsel PLLC
Jeffrey A. Simmons, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP
Moderator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18378063Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:00:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider the third of several petitions for certiorari asking it to review a question which has split the lower federal courts: whether district courts have the power under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to issue...Featuring:
Chris Johns, Partner, Johns & Counsel PLLC
Jeffrey A. Simmons, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP
Moderator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert]]>3626environmental law & property r,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-gambFeaturing:
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18364124Mon, 24 Jun 2019 21:00:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Gamble v. United States, Terance Gamble received two sentences and two convictions for the same crime - once under Alabama law and once under federal law due to the doctrine of dual sovereignty. While convicting someone twice for the same crime...Featuring:
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1901constitution,criminal law & procedure,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-juliana-v-united-stateThe Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. In 2016, the district court denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. After many twists and turns (including unusual mandamus proceedings in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court), the district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit in late 2018. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.
Featuring:
Prof. James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School
Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18361602Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the...The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. In 2016, the district court denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. After many twists and turns (including unusual mandamus proceedings in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court), the district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit in late 2018. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.
Featuring:
Prof. James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School
Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3272administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,environmental law & property r,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/cyber-strategy-update-with-robert-l-straFeaturing:
Robert L. Strayer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18319960Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for a teleforum with Robert L. Strayer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy, who will talk about the State Department’s efforts under the National Cyber Strategy and...Featuring:
Robert L. Strayer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1439international law & trade,international & national secur,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-lessons-of-tragedy-statecrafThe ancient Greeks, as exemplified by the Athenians, projected legendary power in the preservation of their freedom and autonomy. The premise of the book Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order holds that much of the resolve to confront war -- and thus also to deter war – came from “keeping comfort with their worst fears.” What does the Greek embrace of tragedy while maintaining a general sense of optimism teach us today?
The authors of Lessons of Tragedy conclude that America is in a state of amnesia just when authoritarianism is advancing and the global balance of power is gradually shifting. They write that there is no night watchman and no supreme authority to enforce order. Does this state of affairs create a vacuum that becomes an actual invitation to chaos?
Featuring:
Dr. Charles Edel, Senior Fellow, United States Studies Centre, and co-author, The Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18299563Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs Thucydides recorded Pericles’ famous funeral oration, the mayor of Athens exhorted citizens: “[J]udging happiness to be the fruit of freedom and freedom of valor, never decline the dangers of war.” Likely gleaning from the themes...The ancient Greeks, as exemplified by the Athenians, projected legendary power in the preservation of their freedom and autonomy. The premise of the book Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order holds that much of the resolve to confront war -- and thus also to deter war – came from “keeping comfort with their worst fears.” What does the Greek embrace of tragedy while maintaining a general sense of optimism teach us today?
The authors of Lessons of Tragedy conclude that America is in a state of amnesia just when authoritarianism is advancing and the global balance of power is gradually shifting. They write that there is no night watchman and no supreme authority to enforce order. Does this state of affairs create a vacuum that becomes an actual invitation to chaos?
Featuring:
Dr. Charles Edel, Senior Fellow, United States Studies Centre, and co-author, The Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order]]>1685culture,international law & trade,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-title-vii-casesFeaturing:
John Bursch, Founder, Bursch Law PLLC and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy and Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18273753Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:00:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyRG & GR Harris Funeral Homes has been serving the Detroit area for more than 100 years. To ensure that the family members and friends of a deceased love one are focused on processing their grief, the funeral home has professional conduct and dress...Featuring:
John Bursch, Founder, Bursch Law PLLC and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy and Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1827administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment law,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/chinese-misappropriation-of-u-s-technolohttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/18273051Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:00:16 +0000The Federalist Society3086intellectual property,international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-cedar-point-nursery-v-Join the teleforum to hear reactions from Wen Fa and Bethany Berger. Wen Fa is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to vindicating property rights and individual liberty. Mr. Fa was the primary drafter of the Growers’ Ninth Circuit brief and argued the case before the Ninth Circuit panel. Bethany Berger is a law professor at the University of Connecticut and an expert on property law.
Featuring:
Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Bethany Berger, Wallace Stevens Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18271126Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:30:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a 2-1 decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma. In Cedar Point, California agricultural growers asked the court to invalidate an Agricultural Labor Relations Board regulation that allowed union organizers to...Join the teleforum to hear reactions from Wen Fa and Bethany Berger. Wen Fa is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to vindicating property rights and individual liberty. Mr. Fa was the primary drafter of the Growers’ Ninth Circuit brief and argued the case before the Ninth Circuit panel. Bethany Berger is a law professor at the University of Connecticut and an expert on property law.
Featuring:
Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Bethany Berger, Wallace Stevens Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1997administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,environmental law & property r,labor & employment law,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-retuFeaturing:
Prof. Adam MacLeod, Professor of Law, Faulkner University
Matthew J. Dowd, Founder and Partner, Dowd Scheffel PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18263358Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Return Mail v. US Postal Service, the Supreme Court held that the United States Government does not qualify as a “person” in the organic statutory provisions that created the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) in the American...Featuring:
Prof. Adam MacLeod, Professor of Law, Faulkner University
Matthew J. Dowd, Founder and Partner, Dowd Scheffel PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2838federalism & separation of pow,intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/cisa-and-cyber-threats-how-government-anFeaturing:
Daniel Sutherland, Chief Counsel at CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)
Raj Shah, Technology Entrepreneur and former Managing Director, Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx)
Moderator: Daniel West, Associate, SCF Partners
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18261427Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFollowing passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act in November 2018, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was established under the Department of Homeland Security. CISA is responsible for protecting...Featuring:
Daniel Sutherland, Chief Counsel at CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)
Raj Shah, Technology Entrepreneur and former Managing Director, Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx)
Moderator: Daniel West, Associate, SCF Partners
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2983international & national secur,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/libor-will-a-200-trillion-global-benchma
Dr. Oonagh McDonald thoroughly explores LIBOR's evolution, scandals, and the issues of its future in her new book, "Holding Bankers to Account." Oonagh will present the lessons of history and the state of current debates. Gary Kalbaugh of ING Financial and Columbia Law School and Alex Pollock of the R Street Institute will be discussants.

Featuring:

Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law

Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute

Dr. Oonagh McDonald, CBE, Philosophy Lecturer at the University of Bristol, Member of the British Parliament 1976-1987, Member of the Front Bench Treasury Team, Author of Several Books, Including her Newest One "Holding Bankers to Account"]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18253973Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLIBOR is a hugely important interest rate benchmark, used globally and embedded in over $200 trillion of financial contracts. It has its notable shortcomings, including having been subject to scandalous attempts at manipulation. Financial...
Dr. Oonagh McDonald thoroughly explores LIBOR's evolution, scandals, and the issues of its future in her new book, "Holding Bankers to Account." Oonagh will present the lessons of history and the state of current debates. Gary Kalbaugh of ING Financial and Columbia Law School and Alex Pollock of the R Street Institute will be discussants.

Featuring:

Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law

Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute

Dr. Oonagh McDonald, CBE, Philosophy Lecturer at the University of Bristol, Member of the British Parliament 1976-1987, Member of the Front Bench Treasury Team, Author of Several Books, Including her Newest One "Holding Bankers to Account"]]>3259administrative law & regulatio,financial services,financial services & e-commerc,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-home-depot-u-sFeaturing:Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18128096Thu, 30 May 2019 22:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Class Action Fairness Act permits "any defendant" to remove a class action to federal court. May a third-party defendant brought into a suit through a counterclaim by the original defendant remove a class action to federal court? In Home Depot v....Featuring:Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute]]>2336litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-love-terminal-partnersFeaturing:
Dana Berliner, Senior Vice President and Litigation Director, Institute for Justice
Nancie Marzulla, Founding Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18126990Thu, 30 May 2019 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA 2018 federal circuit court ruling rejected compensation to the plaintiff in a case in which the government took through eminent domain a privately owned airline terminal and physically demolished it. The plaintiffs, now seeking cert before the U.S....Featuring:
Dana Berliner, Senior Vice President and Litigation Director, Institute for Justice
Nancie Marzulla, Founding Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2639environmental law & property r,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-herrera-v-wyomJustice Sotomayor, writing for Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch issued an opinion in favor of Mr. Herrera, and remanded for further proceedings.
Join this teleforum to hear a reaction to the Herrera decision from A.J. Ferate with the Oklahoma City office of Spencer Fane. Mr. Ferate, a tribal law and appellate practitioner, represented Oklahoma oil and gas producers as amicus in the Carpenter v. Murphy case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. He also serves as a member of the Executive Board of the Federalist Society's Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Group.
Featuring:
A.J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18114371Wed, 29 May 2019 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in the case of Herrera v. Wyoming. In Herrera, the Court encountered the question of whether a portion of an 1868 treaty between the Crow, a Native American tribe which today resides on...Justice Sotomayor, writing for Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch issued an opinion in favor of Mr. Herrera, and remanded for further proceedings.
Join this teleforum to hear a reaction to the Herrera decision from A.J. Ferate with the Oklahoma City office of Spencer Fane. Mr. Ferate, a tribal law and appellate practitioner, represented Oklahoma oil and gas producers as amicus in the Carpenter v. Murphy case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. He also serves as a member of the Executive Board of the Federalist Society's Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Group.
Featuring:
A.J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1555environmental & energy law,environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/osha-in-2019-a-review-of-what-has-occurrFeaturing:
Bradford T. Hammock, Shareholder and Co-Chair, Workplace Safety & Health (OSHA/MSHA) Practice Group, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18116609Wed, 29 May 2019 16:30:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) continues to make headlines in both the regulatory and enforcement arenas - and this is expected to continue over the next several months. This teleforum will review the major recent...Featuring:
Bradford T. Hammock, Shareholder and Co-Chair, Workplace Safety & Health (OSHA/MSHA) Practice Group, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1786labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/payday-lending-loansFeaturing:
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18115702Wed, 29 May 2019 15:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyOne of the final acts of former Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray before he left to run for Governor of Ohio in 2017 was the issuance of a comprehensive rule governing payday loans, auto title loans, and other...Featuring:
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1575administrative law & regulatio,financial services,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-biestek-v-berryhillFeaturing:
Prof. Kent Barnett, J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18113424Wed, 29 May 2019 12:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Biestek v. Berryhill, the Supreme Court held that agencies can rely on an expert witness’s opinion even when that witness refuses to provide the underlying data for her opinion. On one hand, the Court’s holding that an agency’s...Featuring:
Prof. Kent Barnett, J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3119administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-supreme-court-overrulesFeaturing:
Hon. Thomas Fisher, Solicitor general, Indiana
Mr. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18102153Tue, 28 May 2019 14:00:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court has overturned a 40-year-old precedent in a case that changes the relationship between the states in our federalist structure of government. Indiana Solicitor General Fisher was counsel...Featuring:
Hon. Thomas Fisher, Solicitor general, Indiana
Mr. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1980federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/executive-branch-civil-rights-update-withttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/18067177Fri, 24 May 2019 14:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyKenneth L. Marcus, the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, joins us to discuss the progress that has been made in the administration's first two years, as well as offer a look forward at some of the...2513civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/loan-shark-prevention-act
Featuring:
Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18054277Thu, 23 May 2019 09:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecently, members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives have introduced the "Loan Shark Prevention Act," which imposes a nationwide 15% interest rate ceiling on all consumer credit products, from credit cards to payday...
Featuring:
Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School]]>2594financial services,financial services & e-commerccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-nysrpa-v-city-oThe case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Featuring:
Kenneth Klukowski, General Counsel, American Civil Rights Union and Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18045402Wed, 22 May 2019 16:00:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyNew York City issues permits allowing authorized persons to register guns to keep at home for self-protection, but the city’s law makes it a crime to remove registered firearms from that home for any reason except to transport them to one of...The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Featuring:
Kenneth Klukowski, General Counsel, American Civil Rights Union and Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>2603civil rights,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-department-of-interiorIn 2014, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department had failed to justify its ban on religious feather possession as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department is now considering a Petition for Rulemaking, which proposes to 1) broaden the Morton Policy to include all sincere religious believers who use protected feathers in their religious exercise—as both the Constitution and RFRA require; 2) officially promulgate this policy as a formal rule rather than rely on informal guidance, ending decades of legal limbo for those who worship with feathers; and, 3) empower Native American tribes to help combat the illegal commercialization of federally protected feathers. Join Joe Davis as he addresses the proposed rulemaking and its relationship to evolving First Amendment jurisprudence.
Featuring:
Joe Davis, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18033725Tue, 21 May 2019 09:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyIt is currently a federal crime, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, for many Native Americans to possess eagle feathers for religious use. Congress authorized the Department of the Interior (the Department) to permit an exception for...In 2014, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department had failed to justify its ban on religious feather possession as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department is now considering a Petition for Rulemaking, which proposes to 1) broaden the Morton Policy to include all sincere religious believers who use protected feathers in their religious exercise—as both the Constitution and RFRA require; 2) officially promulgate this policy as a formal rule rather than rely on informal guidance, ending decades of legal limbo for those who worship with feathers; and, 3) empower Native American tribes to help combat the illegal commercialization of federally protected feathers. Join Joe Davis as he addresses the proposed rulemaking and its relationship to evolving First Amendment jurisprudence.
Featuring:
Joe Davis, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1551administrative law & regulatio,environmental law & property r,regulatory transparency projec,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/does-legalizing-uber-and-lyft-take-the-pFeaturing:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18003957Fri, 17 May 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the last few years, taxi companies in several cities have brought lawsuits claiming that legalizing ride-share services such as Uber and Lyft violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because it expropriates their supposed property...Featuring:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1801environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-cochFeaturing:
Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18002116Fri, 17 May 2019 12:05:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will discuss the Supreme Court argument in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., a case about the False Claims Act statute of limitations. In this case, the Court examined whether a relator can rely on the tolling...Featuring:
Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP]]>1488criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/roundup-weedkiller-litigationFeaturing:
Prof. David Bernstein, George Mason University Foundation Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18001903Fri, 17 May 2019 12:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a series of recent decisions, both federal and state courts have allowed the admission of scientific evidence alleging that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller is associated with lymphoma. These courts have allowed these cases to proceed, despite...Featuring:
Prof. David Bernstein, George Mason University Foundation Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2363environmental & energy law,environmental law & property r,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-what-does-the-supreme-cCome hear immediate reactions to the Apple v. Pepper decision from two experienced antitrust practitioners who participated in the case – Andrew Finch, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and Lauren Weinstein of MoloLamken’s Washington, DC, office, who represented a group of 18 antitrust professors that filed an amicus brief in the case. Adam Biegel of Alston & Bird’s Washington, DC, office and a member of the Executive Board of the Federalist Society’s Corporations, Securities, and Antitrust Practice Group, will moderate the teleconference.
Featuring:
Andrew Finch, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
Lauren M. Weinstein, Attorney, MoloLamken LLP
Moderator: Adam Biegel, Partner, Alston & Bird]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17948693Thu, 16 May 2019 16:00:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 13, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Apple may face antitrust liability in a consumer suit over purchases made from the Apple App Store. That may sound like an unremarkable proposition (and Apple in fact may still prevail). But the...Come hear immediate reactions to the Apple v. Pepper decision from two experienced antitrust practitioners who participated in the case – Andrew Finch, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and Lauren Weinstein of MoloLamken’s Washington, DC, office, who represented a group of 18 antitrust professors that filed an amicus brief in the case. Adam Biegel of Alston & Bird’s Washington, DC, office and a member of the Executive Board of the Federalist Society’s Corporations, Securities, and Antitrust Practice Group, will moderate the teleconference.
Featuring:
Andrew Finch, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
Lauren M. Weinstein, Attorney, MoloLamken LLP
Moderator: Adam Biegel, Partner, Alston & Bird]]>2927corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/executive-privilege-and-congressional-ovFeaturing:
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17939695Wed, 15 May 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat is the proper balance between Congressional oversight and Executive privilege? As it becomes clear that Congress is not satisfied with the Mueller Report on its face, and it will seek to conduct follow-up inquiries on its own, it has requested an...Featuring:
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3095article i initiative,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-lampFeaturing:
Prof. Henry Allen Blair, Robins Kaplan Distinguished Professor and John H. Faricy Professor of Empirical Research; Senior Fellow, Dispute Resolution Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17929771Tue, 14 May 2019 20:00:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Wednesday, April 24, the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded. Prof. Henry Allen Blair will join...Featuring:
Prof. Henry Allen Blair, Robins Kaplan Distinguished Professor and John H. Faricy Professor of Empirical Research; Senior Fellow, Dispute Resolution Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1529labor & employment law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/trumps-emergency-tariffs-court-says-legaFeaturing:
Prof. Timothy Meyer, Professor of Law; FedEx Research Professor; Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law School
Prof. Jide Nzelibe, Professor of Law; Affiliated Faculty, Ford Motor Company Center for Global Citizenship, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17806693Wed, 01 May 2019 13:00:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn late March, the Court of International Trade (a U.S. Article III court) upheld the legality of Trump administration tariffs under Sec. 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act (American Institute for Int'l Steel, Inc. v. United States). But one of the...Featuring:
Prof. Timothy Meyer, Professor of Law; FedEx Research Professor; Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law School
Prof. Jide Nzelibe, Professor of Law; Affiliated Faculty, Ford Motor Company Center for Global Citizenship, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3357foreign policy,international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/california-statute-requiring-female-boarThe penalties for violating this law are a $100,000 fine for a first offense and a $300,000 fine for every offense afterwards. The bill has brought discussion of gender equality in corporate America to the forefront of the civil rights landscape and could have important implications for the future.
Featuring:
Anastasia P. Boden, Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17793704Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:00:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a bill that made California the first state to require corporations and companies based inside the state, even if incorporated elsewhere, to hire a minimum number of women. The bill provides that, by...The penalties for violating this law are a $100,000 fine for a first offense and a $300,000 fine for every offense afterwards. The bill has brought discussion of gender equality in corporate America to the forefront of the civil rights landscape and could have important implications for the future.
Featuring:
Anastasia P. Boden, Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>1858administrative law & regulatio,corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/update-on-the-mueller-reportFeaturing:
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17793754Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:30:06 +0000The Federalist SocietySpecial Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report on The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election was released to the public on April 18th, 2019, capping off a nearly two year-long investigation into the allegations of...Featuring:
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3581criminal law & procedure,election law,federalism & separation of pow,foreign policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-departmenCitizenship is not a novel question for during decennial census activities. It was first asked in 1820, and was most recently asked in 1950. However, the district court in this case issued a 270-plus page decision holding that the question on the 2020 census was illegal. An appeal of that decision was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when the justices granted certiorari before judgment, the first time doing so in many years. This was likely motivated in part by the federal government’s assertion that census forms must be finalized before July 2019 to properly carry out the 2020 census.
The implications of this case are far-reaching. The federal government maintains a database with the residences of all legal aliens in this country, so cross-referencing those with census forms including citizenship could in theory reveal the whereabouts of most illegal aliens in the United States, assuming potential legal impediments to sharing that information could be resolved. This also could be a significant case on discovery involving high-level government officials, and also of APA litigation.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Mr. Kenneth A. Klukowski, Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17735031Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 23, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Department of Commerce v. New York, the legal challenge arising from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to ask about the citizenship of census respondents. The case presents three...Citizenship is not a novel question for during decennial census activities. It was first asked in 1820, and was most recently asked in 1950. However, the district court in this case issued a 270-plus page decision holding that the question on the 2020 census was illegal. An appeal of that decision was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when the justices granted certiorari before judgment, the first time doing so in many years. This was likely motivated in part by the federal government’s assertion that census forms must be finalized before July 2019 to properly carry out the 2020 census.
The implications of this case are far-reaching. The federal government maintains a database with the residences of all legal aliens in this country, so cross-referencing those with census forms including citizenship could in theory reveal the whereabouts of most illegal aliens in the United States, assuming potential legal impediments to sharing that information could be resolved. This also could be a significant case on discovery involving high-level government officials, and also of APA litigation.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Mr. Kenneth A. Klukowski, Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3223federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-ali-copyright-project-restatement-or
Featuring:
Prof. June Besek, Lecturer in Law; Executive Directo, Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts
Mr. Sy Damle, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP
Moderator: Mr. Steven Tepp, President & CEO, Sentinel Worldwide
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17722675Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe American Law Institute (ALI) is a familiar and trusted institution for jurists across the country who rely on its “restatements” of disperse common law jurisprudence. More recently, the ALI embarked on a different type of project; to...
Featuring:
Prof. June Besek, Lecturer in Law; Executive Directo, Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts
Mr. Sy Damle, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP
Moderator: Mr. Steven Tepp, President & CEO, Sentinel Worldwide
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3365intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/william-j-colwell-jr-memorial-teleforum-Bill Colwell was a great patriot and friend to many of us in the Federalist Society, and a pillar within the Washington D.C. legal community, but his appeal was by no means limited to one side of the aisle or to people with whom he agreed. As one recent description phrased it, Bill was “a beautiful mind of insatiable curiosity and creativity, a comedian who made us laugh until tears rolled down our faces, chef and mixologist par excellence.” Bill, a devoted and loving husband and father, was a man of great faith. Bill was Assistant General Counsel and Corporate Director of the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Prior to that, he was employed at The Boeing Company and Wiley, Rein & Fielding LLP. He served in the United States Navy as a nuclear submarine officer on the USS Hampton, where he received numerous awards. A nationally recognized expert in government contracts, Bill frequently spoke and published on procurement issues. He served on the Board of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, chaired the Legal Committee of the National Defense Industrial Association, and recently received the 2018 NDIA Howard H. Cork Memorial Award for exceptional service to NDIA and the defense industry. But beyond all professional interests, Bill loved his family and is mourned by his wife, Robin, their twin daughters and their extended families.
Featuring:
Opening Remarks: Paul Khoury, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Dakota S. Rudesill, Assistant Professor, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University.
Prof. Robert F. Turner, Professor, General Faculty, and Distinguished Fellow and Associate Director, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia
Moderator: Hartmann Young, Senior Counsel, Government Business, GE Aviation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17714319Mon, 22 Apr 2019 12:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyWe are honoring William “Bill” Colwell with a teleforum on a topic we know he would love – the President’s power to approve – and revoke – security clearances. We will discuss recent media accounts of the President...Bill Colwell was a great patriot and friend to many of us in the Federalist Society, and a pillar within the Washington D.C. legal community, but his appeal was by no means limited to one side of the aisle or to people with whom he agreed. As one recent description phrased it, Bill was “a beautiful mind of insatiable curiosity and creativity, a comedian who made us laugh until tears rolled down our faces, chef and mixologist par excellence.” Bill, a devoted and loving husband and father, was a man of great faith. Bill was Assistant General Counsel and Corporate Director of the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Prior to that, he was employed at The Boeing Company and Wiley, Rein & Fielding LLP. He served in the United States Navy as a nuclear submarine officer on the USS Hampton, where he received numerous awards. A nationally recognized expert in government contracts, Bill frequently spoke and published on procurement issues. He served on the Board of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, chaired the Legal Committee of the National Defense Industrial Association, and recently received the 2018 NDIA Howard H. Cork Memorial Award for exceptional service to NDIA and the defense industry. But beyond all professional interests, Bill loved his family and is mourned by his wife, Robin, their twin daughters and their extended families.
Featuring:
Opening Remarks: Paul Khoury, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Dakota S. Rudesill, Assistant Professor, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University.
Prof. Robert F. Turner, Professor, General Faculty, and Distinguished Fellow and Associate Director, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia
Moderator: Hartmann Young, Senior Counsel, Government Business, GE Aviation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3458international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/race-in-admissions-texas-tech-medical-scRoger Clegg joins us to discuss the recent agreement, and its implications.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17669617Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:00:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Texas Tech Medical School recently approved an agreement with the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, to end the use of racial preferences in their admissions process. The agreement was reached after over a decade of...Roger Clegg joins us to discuss the recent agreement, and its implications.]]>3100administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,constitution,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-iancu-v-bFeaturing:
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17650272Mon, 15 Apr 2019 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRemember “The Slants,” the Asian-American rock band who were denied a trademark because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) thought the band’s name was “disparaging”? In Matal v. Tam (2017), the Supreme Court...Featuring:
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1658free speech & election law,intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-dawn-of-the-code-warFeaturing:
John P. Carlin, Partner, Morrison & Foerster LLP, and former Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Security Division (NSD)


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17648366Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Dawn of the Code War, authors John P. Carlin and Garrett M. Graff describe how the Internet has been weaponized by hackers to facilitate election tampering, theft of intelligence files, and many other online forms of attack. The digitization of our...Featuring:
John P. Carlin, Partner, Morrison & Foerster LLP, and former Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Security Division (NSD)


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2899intellectual property,international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/analyzing-the-new-proposed-rule-definingFor decades, the EPA and Corps have struggledto come up with a proper definition that is both consistent with the plain language of the statute, respects the state role in addressing water pollution, and is consistent with the rule of law. Does the new proposed rule address these concerns? What are some of the concerns with the proposed rule? How should the EPA and the Corps define key terms such as “tributaries” and “adjacent wetlands?” Should a final rule include intermittent waters? Please join us as we discuss these questions and many others in this timely Teleforum.
Featuring:
Deidre Duncan, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17617129Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:00:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 14, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a proposed rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This is a critical definition because it...For decades, the EPA and Corps have struggledto come up with a proper definition that is both consistent with the plain language of the statute, respects the state role in addressing water pollution, and is consistent with the rule of law. Does the new proposed rule address these concerns? What are some of the concerns with the proposed rule? How should the EPA and the Corps define key terms such as “tributaries” and “adjacent wetlands?” Should a final rule include intermittent waters? Please join us as we discuss these questions and many others in this timely Teleforum.
Featuring:
Deidre Duncan, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2874administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,environmental law & property r,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-buckThe Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, affirmed the trial court and appellate court rulings and found in favor of the respondent. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burdens of proof, based on prior Supreme Court precedent. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elana Kagan.

The holding has caused significant controversy, and may indicate the future of the Supreme Court on death penalty cases, as well as interpretation of the 8th amendment.
Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17591880Wed, 10 Apr 2019 13:00:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyMonday, April 1st, the Supreme Court ruled on the 8th amendment case Bucklew v. Precythe. Plaintiff Russell Bucklew was sentenced to death on counts of kidnapping, rape, and murder, and the execution was to take place on May 21, 2014. However, Bucklew...The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, affirmed the trial court and appellate court rulings and found in favor of the respondent. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burdens of proof, based on prior Supreme Court precedent. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elana Kagan.

The holding has caused significant controversy, and may indicate the future of the Supreme Court on death penalty cases, as well as interpretation of the 8th amendment.
Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation]]>977civil rights,constitution,criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/percolating-in-washington-state-export-tFeaturing:
Glenn G. Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division and Director, Communications, Washington Legal Foundation
Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17521339Wed, 03 Apr 2019 10:00:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen state regulators block approval of construction projects, disappointed businesses routinely challenge the decision in court. A lawsuit currently pending in the Western District of Washington, Lighthouse Resources v. Inslee, however, is not your...Featuring:
Glenn G. Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division and Director, Communications, Washington Legal Foundation
Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3093administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,environmental law & property r,foreign policy,international law & trade,international & national secur,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-air-The plaintiffs argued that the manufacturers had a duty to warn because they knew that asbestos would be required to be incorporated with their parts to function properly. The defendants argued that they had no duty to warn because they were not incorporating the asbestos with their product, the Navy was.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh held that “a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize the danger.” The Court noted that they did not agree with the entirety of the Third Circuit’s reasoning but affirmed its judgment directing the district court to reconsider its grant of summary judgment.
Karen Harned will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision and what it could mean for product liability law outside of the maritime context.
Featuring:
Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17509998Tue, 02 Apr 2019 09:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. DeVries, which concerned whether federal maritime law requires a manufacturer of non-asbestos containing parts -- like pumps, turbines and blowers for Navy ships --...The plaintiffs argued that the manufacturers had a duty to warn because they knew that asbestos would be required to be incorporated with their parts to function properly. The defendants argued that they had no duty to warn because they were not incorporating the asbestos with their product, the Navy was.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh held that “a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize the danger.” The Court noted that they did not agree with the entirety of the Third Circuit’s reasoning but affirmed its judgment directing the district court to reconsider its grant of summary judgment.
Karen Harned will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision and what it could mean for product liability law outside of the maritime context.
Featuring:
Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1534contracts,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/re-considering-co-benefits-in-environmenSince the Reagan Administration, federal agencies have been required by Executive Order to quantify the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions, and to avoid regulations that do more harm than good. Some statutes also explicitly or implicitly require an agency to consider the costs of regulation. The Clean Air Act’s “hazardous air pollutants” provision is such a statute. In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the statutory limitation to “appropriate and necessary” regulation required EPA to consider cost. Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court explained, “One would not say that it is even rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”
But what counts as a benefit when EPA is regulating air pollution? Just the health effects of reducing the targeted pollutant? Or all the ancillary benefits (known as “co-benefits”) of other pollutants that are reduced along with it? What if those secondary pollutants are already regulated under different provisions of the same act?
The Obama Administration’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard was estimated to impose $9.6 billion in compliance costs on the energy sector in exchange for $4 to $6 million in mercury-related benefits. But the rule was also estimated to generate $37 to $90 billion in co-benefits from incidental reductions of particulate matter, a pollutant that is regulated under EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In a “Revised Supplemental Cost Finding” EPA has recently proposed to re-do its cost-benefit assessment for the mercury standard, excluding the particulate matter co-benefits and rescinding the Obama Administration’s finding that the mercury standard was “appropriate and necessary.”
Professor Dan Farber and Adam Gustafson will discuss different possible approaches to valuing co-benefits in the context of hazardous air pollution and environmental regulation more broadly.
Featuring:
Prof. Dan Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, University of California, Berkeley
Adam Gustafson, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17477195Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow an agency counts costs and benefits can often determine whether it will regulate at all. EPA’s reconsideration of its co-benefit accounting methodology in the context of its mercury standard could have significant implications for...Since the Reagan Administration, federal agencies have been required by Executive Order to quantify the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions, and to avoid regulations that do more harm than good. Some statutes also explicitly or implicitly require an agency to consider the costs of regulation. The Clean Air Act’s “hazardous air pollutants” provision is such a statute. In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the statutory limitation to “appropriate and necessary” regulation required EPA to consider cost. Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court explained, “One would not say that it is even rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”
But what counts as a benefit when EPA is regulating air pollution? Just the health effects of reducing the targeted pollutant? Or all the ancillary benefits (known as “co-benefits”) of other pollutants that are reduced along with it? What if those secondary pollutants are already regulated under different provisions of the same act?
The Obama Administration’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard was estimated to impose $9.6 billion in compliance costs on the energy sector in exchange for $4 to $6 million in mercury-related benefits. But the rule was also estimated to generate $37 to $90 billion in co-benefits from incidental reductions of particulate matter, a pollutant that is regulated under EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In a “Revised Supplemental Cost Finding” EPA has recently proposed to re-do its cost-benefit assessment for the mercury standard, excluding the particulate matter co-benefits and rescinding the Obama Administration’s finding that the mercury standard was “appropriate and necessary.”
Professor Dan Farber and Adam Gustafson will discuss different possible approaches to valuing co-benefits in the context of hazardous air pollution and environmental regulation more broadly.
Featuring:
Prof. Dan Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, University of California, Berkeley
Adam Gustafson, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1961administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,environmental law & property r,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-teleforum-nielsen-v-preIn two Ninth Circuit decisions, Preap v. Johnson and Khoury v. Asher, it was ruled that criminals released but not immediately detained were entitled to a bond hearing. The ruling in Nielsen reverses these holdings, insofar as Justice Alito concluded that so long as the immigrants meet the criteria set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the period of time between release and detention is irrelevant. (DHS did not take Preap “into custody” until about seven years after Preap was released from criminal custody.) Justice Alito, writing for the majority, stated that it was “better late...than never” with regard to detention, supporting this conclusion with a grammatical analysis. Specifically, because “an adverb cannot modify a noun, the “when released” clause cannot modify ‘alien’”. In other words, nothing in the plain meaning of the text supports the Circuit Court’s decisions to differently apply the statute to those aliens who were not detained immediately on release from prison.
Featuring:
Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17474732Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:00:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the Nielsen v. Preap decision, released on Wednesday, March 20, Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts joined Justice Alito in finding that a mandatory detention statute regarding potentially removable immigrants applied to a wider class...In two Ninth Circuit decisions, Preap v. Johnson and Khoury v. Asher, it was ruled that criminals released but not immediately detained were entitled to a bond hearing. The ruling in Nielsen reverses these holdings, insofar as Justice Alito concluded that so long as the immigrants meet the criteria set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the period of time between release and detention is irrelevant. (DHS did not take Preap “into custody” until about seven years after Preap was released from criminal custody.) Justice Alito, writing for the majority, stated that it was “better late...than never” with regard to detention, supporting this conclusion with a grammatical analysis. Specifically, because “an adverb cannot modify a noun, the “when released” clause cannot modify ‘alien’”. In other words, nothing in the plain meaning of the text supports the Circuit Court’s decisions to differently apply the statute to those aliens who were not detained immediately on release from prison.
Featuring:
Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1161cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-kisor-v-wImportantly, the United States filed a merits brief in Kisor that forcefully criticized Auer/Seminole Rock deference, yet argued that the Court should not overrule Auer and Seminole Rock “in their entirety.” The brief foreshadows what will likely be a memorable oral argument, featuring Paul Hughes of Mayer Brown LLP and Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Hughes represents James Kisor, the Vietnam War veteran who is the petitioner in the case. Kisor is challenging a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that denied Kisor’s request for retroactive disability benefits connected to his wartime service. Francisco will be defending the VA’s decision.
Karen Harned, Andrew Varcoe, and moderator Stephen Vaden will join us on the afternoon of March 27 to discuss that morning’s oral argument in Kisor and its potential implications -- including the implications, if any, for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Harned and Varcoe will have attended the oral argument that morning and will be sharing their observations about it.
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center
Andrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17466170Thu, 28 Mar 2019 18:00:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn the morning of March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins,...Importantly, the United States filed a merits brief in Kisor that forcefully criticized Auer/Seminole Rock deference, yet argued that the Court should not overrule Auer and Seminole Rock “in their entirety.” The brief foreshadows what will likely be a memorable oral argument, featuring Paul Hughes of Mayer Brown LLP and Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Hughes represents James Kisor, the Vietnam War veteran who is the petitioner in the case. Kisor is challenging a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that denied Kisor’s request for retroactive disability benefits connected to his wartime service. Francisco will be defending the VA’s decision.
Karen Harned, Andrew Varcoe, and moderator Stephen Vaden will join us on the afternoon of March 27 to discuss that morning’s oral argument in Kisor and its potential implications -- including the implications, if any, for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Harned and Varcoe will have attended the oral argument that morning and will be sharing their observations about it.
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center
Andrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3102administrative law & regulatio,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-sturFeaturing:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17456047Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:00:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn today's decision on Sturgeon v. Frost, the Supreme Court has held in favor of an Alaskan moose hunter’s right to traverse a river by hovercraft as it passes through a National Park unit, in a remote and largely roadless area of the state. The...Featuring:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2156environmental & energy law,environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-franThe petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court, led by Theodore Frank, included all those who believe the district court’s decision to award a cy pres settlement creates an unlawful conflict of interest between attorneys, who were compensated monetarily, and class members, who were not. Secondly, they allege that it is inappropriate that the settlement fund was given to institutions that regularly council in the matter at hand (i.e. privacy cases). The respondents include members from both parties (plaintiffs and defendants) who support the cy pres award.
The Supreme Court decided to vacate and remand to the 9th Circuit with direction to investigate the issue of standing. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter, claiming that the settlement should be reversed, because “the class members here received no settlement fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims.”
Ted Frank will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, next steps, and other like cases including another pending cy pres cert petition, Perryman v Romero.
Featuring:
Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17445006Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:00:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court heard Frank v. Gaos, stemming from a class action suit brought against Google for allegedly leaking, in violation of privacy laws, information about their search terms to third parties by including search terms in...The petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court, led by Theodore Frank, included all those who believe the district court’s decision to award a cy pres settlement creates an unlawful conflict of interest between attorneys, who were compensated monetarily, and class members, who were not. Secondly, they allege that it is inappropriate that the settlement fund was given to institutions that regularly council in the matter at hand (i.e. privacy cases). The respondents include members from both parties (plaintiffs and defendants) who support the cy pres award.
The Supreme Court decided to vacate and remand to the 9th Circuit with direction to investigate the issue of standing. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter, claiming that the settlement should be reversed, because “the class members here received no settlement fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims.”
Ted Frank will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, next steps, and other like cases including another pending cy pres cert petition, Perryman v Romero.
Featuring:
Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1409litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/pipeline-energy-infrastructure-legal-chaFeaturing:
Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Peter Tolsdorf, Vice President of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel, National Association of Manufacturers

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17433051Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:00:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe advent of fracking and other technological innovations has unleashed a new era of American energy independence, and increased energy production has required increased construction for pipeline and other related energy infrastructure projects....Featuring:
Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Peter Tolsdorf, Vice President of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel, National Association of Manufacturers

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2256environmental & energy law,environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-there-a-constitutional-issue-in-the-uFeaturing:
Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Dr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17405906Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:00:28 +0000The Federalist SocietySome argue that the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) presents interesting questions about how to resolve trade and investment disputes. The USMCA, which is the new incarnation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), presents...Featuring:
Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Dr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2174international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/in-memoriam-ronald-rotunda-and-legal-eth
This Teleforum will focus on lawyer advertising, which Professor Rotunda addressed early in his career, and lawyer rhetoric, whose attempted regulation Professor Rotunda condemned at the end of his career. Professor Morgan will also address Professor Rotunda's interest in technology and his vision of a legal profession whose regulatory burdens may be reduced to allow clients the freedom to pursue their legal rights using services they can better afford.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation L, George Washington University Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17404571Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:00:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyRonald D. Rotunda was a highly-respected, widely-published professor of both Legal Ethics and Constitutional Law. He served on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society Professional Responsibility and Legal Education Practice Group from its...
This Teleforum will focus on lawyer advertising, which Professor Rotunda addressed early in his career, and lawyer rhetoric, whose attempted regulation Professor Rotunda condemned at the end of his career. Professor Morgan will also address Professor Rotunda's interest in technology and his vision of a legal profession whose regulatory burdens may be reduced to allow clients the freedom to pursue their legal rights using services they can better afford.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation L, George Washington University Law School]]>2125cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-california-voting-righ
J. Michael Connolly joins us to discuss the case and the potential implications.
Featuring:
J. Michael Connolly, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17386548Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) imposes liability on cities that elect their representatives through an at-large system and have racially polarized voting. In 2017, the City of Poway was forced to abandon its at-large voting system in favor of...
J. Michael Connolly joins us to discuss the case and the potential implications.
Featuring:
J. Michael Connolly, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC]]>1027civil rights,election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-false-claims-act-who-is-the-responsiFeaturing:
Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17374742Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:00:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will discuss the Supreme Court argument in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., a case about the False Claims Act statute of limitations. In this case, the Court is examining whether a relator can rely on the tolling...Featuring:
Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2389administrative law & regulatio,constitution,criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/communications-workers-v-beck-revitalizeOn March 1, 2019, in United Nurses and Allied Professional (Kent Hospital), the NLRB announced that unions may never charge nonmembers for union legislative or political lobbying, even if the subject of the lobbying “may in general relate to terms of employment or may incidentally affect collective bargaining.” According to the NLRB, “lobbying activity is not a representational function simply because the proposed legislation involves a matter that may also be the subject of collective bargaining.” Kent Hospital is an important decision delineating limits for nonmember employees in the private sector who wish to disassociate from the union’s political and social activities.
Do these developments herald a new era of Beck enforcement and employee free choice in the private-sector workplace? Please join us for a discussion of these issues and trends with Glenn Taubman, a long-time attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, who represents Jeanette Geary, the Charging Party in the Kent Hospital case.
Featuring:
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17323625Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:00:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Communications Workers v. Beck (1988), the Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act “authorizes the exaction [from nonmember employees] of only those [union] fees and dues necessary to ‘performing the duties of an...On March 1, 2019, in United Nurses and Allied Professional (Kent Hospital), the NLRB announced that unions may never charge nonmembers for union legislative or political lobbying, even if the subject of the lobbying “may in general relate to terms of employment or may incidentally affect collective bargaining.” According to the NLRB, “lobbying activity is not a representational function simply because the proposed legislation involves a matter that may also be the subject of collective bargaining.” Kent Hospital is an important decision delineating limits for nonmember employees in the private sector who wish to disassociate from the union’s political and social activities.
Do these developments herald a new era of Beck enforcement and employee free choice in the private-sector workplace? Please join us for a discussion of these issues and trends with Glenn Taubman, a long-time attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, who represents Jeanette Geary, the Charging Party in the Kent Hospital case.
Featuring:
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2674labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-pdr-network-llcAfter PDR Network, LLC, faxed Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. an offer of a free Physicians Desk Reference, the Clinic sued under TCPA. PDR countered that its offer of a free book did not constitute a solicitation subject to the TCPA’s civil liability provision. But in 2006, the Federal Communications Commission had determined that even faxes that promote goods or services for free subject the sender to civil liability.
The Fourth Circuit held that PDR’s fax had violated the TCPA, as the FCC interprets it, and that the Hobbs Act prevented PDR from challenging the FCC’s interpretation in court. So can a federal district court review the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA? Or, because of the Hobbs Act, must a federal district court simply accept the FCC's reading the statute? These important questions are now before the Supreme Court and our experts will provide their insights heading into oral argument.
Featuring:
Bernard Bell, Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar, Rutgers Law School
James Conde, Associate, Boyden Gray & Associates, PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17322603Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyOnce upon a time, businesses would offer their products or services by sending you a fax advertising them. Unfortunately, if you were on the receiving end of these faxes, they tied up your phone lines and used up your paper and ink. Addressing this...After PDR Network, LLC, faxed Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. an offer of a free Physicians Desk Reference, the Clinic sued under TCPA. PDR countered that its offer of a free book did not constitute a solicitation subject to the TCPA’s civil liability provision. But in 2006, the Federal Communications Commission had determined that even faxes that promote goods or services for free subject the sender to civil liability.
The Fourth Circuit held that PDR’s fax had violated the TCPA, as the FCC interprets it, and that the Hobbs Act prevented PDR from challenging the FCC’s interpretation in court. So can a federal district court review the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA? Or, because of the Hobbs Act, must a federal district court simply accept the FCC's reading the statute? These important questions are now before the Supreme Court and our experts will provide their insights heading into oral argument.
Featuring:
Bernard Bell, Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar, Rutgers Law School
James Conde, Associate, Boyden Gray & Associates, PLLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2670administrative law & regulatio,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/understanding-brexit-facts-law-policy-anhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/17311192Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:00:40 +0000The Federalist Society3284foreign policy,international law & trade,international & national secur,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supply-chain-security-in-a-5g-world-whatFeaturing:
Michael H Ryan, Principal, MHRyan Law
Dileep Srihari, Senior Policy Counsel, Telecommunications Industry Association
Moderator: Paul Beaudry, Director of Broadband Policy and Regulatory Affairs, TELUS Communications Inc.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17302423Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:00:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 6th, Huawei announced it was suing the United States government over policies banning federal agencies from purchasing the company’s equipment. Huawei’s lawsuit is the latest escalation in its continuing standoff with the White...Featuring:
Michael H Ryan, Principal, MHRyan Law
Dileep Srihari, Senior Policy Counsel, Telecommunications Industry Association
Moderator: Paul Beaudry, Director of Broadband Policy and Regulatory Affairs, TELUS Communications Inc.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3239telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-at-t-and-time-warner-c

Featuring:

Joshua D. Wright, University Professor and Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Jan M. Rybnicek, Senior Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17291882Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe AT&T/Time Warner merger marks the first time in 40 years that a court has decided a fully-litigated challenge to a vertical merger. On February 26, 2019 the D.C. Circuit affirmed unanimously Judge Leon's district court decision holding the...

Featuring:

Joshua D. Wright, University Professor and Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Jan M. Rybnicek, Senior Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer]]>3583administrative law & regulatio,corporations,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-texas-trade-secrets-case-may-have-broaFeaturing:
Randy Mastro, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17268867Fri, 08 Mar 2019 15:00:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast year, a jury in Texas awarded California-based startup HouseCanary a $706 million verdict, one of the largest ever in a trade secrets case. HouseCanary alleged that Amrock (formerly TitleSource) misappropriated trade secrets of HouseCanary after...Featuring:
Randy Mastro, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1448corporations,criminal law & procedure,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-the-worldFeaturing:
Mark Rienzi, President, The Becket Fund

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17245065Wed, 06 Mar 2019 16:00:17 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat is the nature of government involvement in religious matters, and what is the future of crosses used in war memorials? On February 27, the Supreme Court will hear consolidated oral arguments for two cases concerning World War I crosses: American...Featuring:
Mark Rienzi, President, The Becket Fund

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2452property law,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/federal-reserve-independenceFeaturing:
Alex Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Norbert Michel, Senior Research Fellow, Financial Regulations and Monetary Policy, The Heritage Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17241826Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn years, the issue of Federal Reserve independcy have arison to the top of public discussion. Questions have arrisen surounding the Federal Reserve that have plagued policy and lawmakers for decades. Should the Federal Reserve be...Featuring:
Alex Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Norbert Michel, Senior Research Fellow, Financial Regulations and Monetary Policy, The Heritage Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2713administrative law & regulatio,financial services,financial services & e-commerc,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/campus-free-speech-litigation-updateFeaturing:
Mr. Michael Connolly, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.
Mr. Will Creeley, Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
Mr. Tyson Langhofer, Sr. Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17233902Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:00:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyFree speech and open inquiry on campus have long been a fundamental part of higher education. However, in recent years public universities have started to enact speech codes and other guidelines. These measures have resulted in several lawsuits filed...Featuring:
Mr. Michael Connolly, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.
Mr. Will Creeley, Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
Mr. Tyson Langhofer, Sr. Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3193free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-the-maryland-peFeaturing:
Luke Goodrich, VP & Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17184895Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:00:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyDo crosses on public land violate the Establishment Clause? More importantly, how should the Supreme Court interpret the Establishment Clause? On February 27, the Supreme Court will consider these questions at oral argument in American Legion v....Featuring:
Luke Goodrich, VP & Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3440religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-blinc-v-u-iowa-and-theFeaturing:
Eric Baxter, VP & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17174980Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast week a federal judge issued a ruling for Business Leaders in Christ (“BLinC”), a religious student organization, in their case against the University of Iowa. In November 2017, BLinC was kicked off campus for requiring its leaders to...Featuring:
Eric Baxter, VP & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2857religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-timbVikrant Reddy joins us to discuss the decision and its implications
Featuring:
Vikrant Reddy, senior research fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17175052Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:00:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Timbs v. Indiana today, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines is incorporated against the states under the Due Process Clause -- not the Privilege and Immunities Clause -- of the 14th Amendment. In...Vikrant Reddy joins us to discuss the decision and its implications
Featuring:
Vikrant Reddy, senior research fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2242cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/federal-trade-commission-v-qualcomm-incoFeaturing:
Olivier Blanchard, Senior Analyst, Futurum Research
Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder, International Center for Law & Economics

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17054780Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:00:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis teleforum will investigate the potential impact of the pending decision in the FTC's controversial Section 5 lawsuit against Qualcomm, brought days before the change in administration two years ago, with the incoming acting chair writing an...Featuring:
Olivier Blanchard, Senior Analyst, Futurum Research
Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder, International Center for Law & Economics

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>4038corporations,litigation,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/poland-renegade-or-exemplarPoland’s expressions of political will through Law and Justice Party court restructuring have triggered an unprecedented invocation of Article 7 by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice mandated that Poland reverse the court reforms.
Warsaw will be the site of an imminent summit to address wide-ranging security issues. Originally considered a platform for considering the threats emanating from Iran, the United States has recently characterized the summit as a discussion of cybersecurity, terrorism, extremism, and anti-missile security.
Germany and France just concluded a “friendship treaty” that is understood to implicitly warn countries like Poland and Hungary that too much “nationalism” is a threat to the common goals of European member states.
Is Poland becoming too autocratic and did court restructuring fundamentally threaten European notions of rule of law? How does the United States maintain a close relationship with this valued ally while balancing NATO and European allegiances?
Featuring:
Prof. Jakub Grygiel, Associate Professor, Catholic University of America
Moderator: Dr. James Jay Carafano, Vice President, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
(Prof. Andrzej Bryk, Professor, Jagiellonian University, Poland, was unable to join in this teleforum.)

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/17015043Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyPoland holds a position of economic, strategic, and political importance in Europe. While some former Eastern bloc countries look to Poland as a model of autonomy, the Western European establishment is sending clear messages that Poland may not enjoy...Poland’s expressions of political will through Law and Justice Party court restructuring have triggered an unprecedented invocation of Article 7 by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice mandated that Poland reverse the court reforms.
Warsaw will be the site of an imminent summit to address wide-ranging security issues. Originally considered a platform for considering the threats emanating from Iran, the United States has recently characterized the summit as a discussion of cybersecurity, terrorism, extremism, and anti-missile security.
Germany and France just concluded a “friendship treaty” that is understood to implicitly warn countries like Poland and Hungary that too much “nationalism” is a threat to the common goals of European member states.
Is Poland becoming too autocratic and did court restructuring fundamentally threaten European notions of rule of law? How does the United States maintain a close relationship with this valued ally while balancing NATO and European allegiances?
Featuring:
Prof. Jakub Grygiel, Associate Professor, Catholic University of America
Moderator: Dr. James Jay Carafano, Vice President, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
(Prof. Andrzej Bryk, Professor, Jagiellonian University, Poland, was unable to join in this teleforum.)

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2377international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/are-regulatory-budgets-paying-off-a-yearAfter two years, how has this new framework fared? To discuss it, the Federalist Society’s Administrative Law Practice Group is pleased to host a teleforum with Jeffrey Harris, who served as OIRA’s Associate Administrator during the implementation of E.O. 13771 and Adam White, Director of the Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State.
Featuring:
Jeffrey Harris, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park
Adam White, Assistant Professor and Director of the Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16987438Fri, 08 Feb 2019 12:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771 titled, “Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” In this order, President Trump supplemented the longstanding framework for...After two years, how has this new framework fared? To discuss it, the Federalist Society’s Administrative Law Practice Group is pleased to host a teleforum with Jeffrey Harris, who served as OIRA’s Associate Administrator during the implementation of E.O. 13771 and Adam White, Director of the Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State.
Featuring:
Jeffrey Harris, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park
Adam White, Assistant Professor and Director of the Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2818administrative law & regulatio,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/understanding-and-combating-the-authoritFeaturing:
Theodore R. Bromund, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
Thomas Firestone, Partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP
Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Former Associate Deputy General Counsel, Department of Defense


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16969323Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:00:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe International Criminal Police Organization – officially ICPO-INTERPOL, and commonly known simply as Interpol – plays an important role in international law enforcement, and its publications are often used in U.S. immigration and asylum...Featuring:
Theodore R. Bromund, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
Thomas Firestone, Partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP
Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Former Associate Deputy General Counsel, Department of Defense


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3320criminal law & procedure,international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/going-dark-phenomenonFeaturing:
Jamil Jaffer, Founder and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program
Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shrek
Kenn Kern, Assistant District Attorney, New York county District Attorney's Office
Moderator: Hon. Michele Christiansen Forster, Associate Presiding Judge, Utah Court of Appeals
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16959856Tue, 05 Feb 2019 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat is the effect of encryption on government/law enforcement access to digital evidence? Default device encryption inhibits government’s ability to obtain access to electronic data even in circumstances that satisfy Fourth Amendment warrant...Featuring:
Jamil Jaffer, Founder and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program
Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shrek
Kenn Kern, Assistant District Attorney, New York county District Attorney's Office
Moderator: Hon. Michele Christiansen Forster, Associate Presiding Judge, Utah Court of Appeals
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3273regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/presidential-use-of-emergency-powerFeaturing:
Professor John C. Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Director of the Korea Law Center, the California Constitution Center, and Public Law and Policy Program, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
David A. French, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute, and Senior Writer, National Review

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16949592Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyThere has been much in the news lately concerning the President's use of emergency power to shift budgeted funds from one purpose to another, namely, construction of a barrier along the southern border of the U.S. Does the President have inherent...Featuring:
Professor John C. Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Director of the Korea Law Center, the California Constitution Center, and Public Law and Policy Program, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
David A. French, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute, and Senior Writer, National Review

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3045constitution,federalism,federalism & separation of pow,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/antitrust-enforcement-and-telecom-consolFeaturing:
George Ford, Ph.D., Chief Economist, The Phoenix Center For Advanced Legal &. Economic Public Policy Studies
Alex Okuliar, Partner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Chip Pickering, CEO, INCOMPAS]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16896812Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:00:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe recent elimination of network neutrality rules by the FCC and re-emphasis on a lighter touch free market approach to the telecom sector came with a promise that antitrust enforcement by the DOJ and FCC would serve as a backstop to mitigate the...Featuring:
George Ford, Ph.D., Chief Economist, The Phoenix Center For Advanced Legal &. Economic Public Policy Studies
Alex Okuliar, Partner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Chip Pickering, CEO, INCOMPAS]]>3209administrative law & regulatio,corporations,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supreme-court-denies-review-of-constitutFeaturing:
Sam Kazman, General Counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16877141Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:00:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Jan. 14 the Supreme Court denied the cert petition in State National Bank of Big Spring v. Mnuchin, No. 18-307, which challenged the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. At issue was the validity of two key CFPB features—a...Featuring:
Sam Kazman, General Counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1587litigation,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/doj-filing-emergency-petition-on-census-Solicitor General Noel Francisco said on January 22 that the Department of Justice plans to file a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with a proposal for expedited briefing to allow for oral argument and decision by the end of June, so the census questions can be printed on time. Francisco believes the issue is of such "imperative public importance" that it justifies altering the normal procedure of the Supreme Court to wait until the federal appeals court has had a chance to opine on the case. John Baker joins us to discuss the Solicitor General’s petition, and the likely future of the citizenship question.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16875627Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:30:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 census remains both uncertain and controversial. On January 15, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court in Manhattan issued an opinion blocking the Commerce Department from...Solicitor General Noel Francisco said on January 22 that the Department of Justice plans to file a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with a proposal for expedited briefing to allow for oral argument and decision by the end of June, so the census questions can be printed on time. Francisco believes the issue is of such "imperative public importance" that it justifies altering the normal procedure of the Supreme Court to wait until the federal appeals court has had a chance to opine on the case. John Baker joins us to discuss the Solicitor General’s petition, and the likely future of the citizenship question.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2005civil rights,constitution,criminal law & procedure,culturecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-knick-v-tMrs. Rose Mary Knick owns roughly 40 acres in rural Scott Township in Pennsylvania. At the behest of some local activists the township passed an ordinance that allows members of the public to trespass across her property to visit some large stones that the activists claim are colonial-era gravestones. Mrs. Knick has no legal way to stop this invasion of her property – short of suing for a taking. When she tried to sue in state court she was rebuffed because she hadn’t yet been fined for not allowing the trespass. When she next tried to sue in federal court for a taking, she was again rebuffed, this time because of Williamson County.
The Supreme Court first heard oral argument on October 3, 2018, before an eight-Justice Court. The primary question is whether Williamson County should be overturned. The October argument focused mainly on the nature of a claim for a taking without just compensation. Now, with a full complement of nine Justices, the Court has asked for rehearing. This time the Court requested that the argument be directed to whether a local government becomes liable for a taking when the government actually invades or otherwise destroys the use and value of the property or whether there is no constitutional violation until after a state court denies compensation.
Featuring:
James S. Burling, Vice President for Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16812849Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:00:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court will hear reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania on January 16, 2019, to decide whether a property owner can bring a regulatory takings claim in federal court. Since the 1985 Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank...Mrs. Rose Mary Knick owns roughly 40 acres in rural Scott Township in Pennsylvania. At the behest of some local activists the township passed an ordinance that allows members of the public to trespass across her property to visit some large stones that the activists claim are colonial-era gravestones. Mrs. Knick has no legal way to stop this invasion of her property – short of suing for a taking. When she tried to sue in state court she was rebuffed because she hadn’t yet been fined for not allowing the trespass. When she next tried to sue in federal court for a taking, she was again rebuffed, this time because of Williamson County.
The Supreme Court first heard oral argument on October 3, 2018, before an eight-Justice Court. The primary question is whether Williamson County should be overturned. The October argument focused mainly on the nature of a claim for a taking without just compensation. Now, with a full complement of nine Justices, the Court has asked for rehearing. This time the Court requested that the argument be directed to whether a local government becomes liable for a taking when the government actually invades or otherwise destroys the use and value of the property or whether there is no constitutional violation until after a state court denies compensation.
Featuring:
James S. Burling, Vice President for Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3146environmental & energy law,federalism,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/criminal-and-civil-enforcement-of-enviroThe Teleforum will be hosted by John Irving, a Partner at Holland & Knight LLP, whose practice and prior work as a prosecutor focuses on internal investigations, white collar defense, and environmental enforcement.
Featuring:
John S. Irving IV, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16811916Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:00:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis Teleforum will provide an overview of criminal and civil enforcement provisions of environmental laws pertaining to water, air, soil, and hazardous materials. It will include a discussion of the factors that the government considers in deciding...The Teleforum will be hosted by John Irving, a Partner at Holland & Knight LLP, whose practice and prior work as a prosecutor focuses on internal investigations, white collar defense, and environmental enforcement.
Featuring:
John S. Irving IV, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2407criminal law & procedure,environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-franchiseThis teleform will discuss the Supreme Court oral arguments in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. This case considers if a citizen can sue a state in the court of a different state. This raises a variety of substantial questions concerning federalism and state sovereign immunity. In Nevada v. Hall (1979), the Supreme Court rejected that sister-state immunity was implicit in the Constitution. Today in Hyatt, 44 states, among others, are asking the Court to overturn that decision and protect states from suit in other state’s courts. Professor Stephen Sachs will discuss how the Court approached this case at oral arguments and its implications on the future of state sovereign immunity.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16751015Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyAfter Gilbert Hyatt, the petitioner, moved to Nevada he was investigated by the Franchise Tax Board of California for failing to pay California personal income taxes. Due to California’s actions in doing so, Hyatt sued California in...This teleform will discuss the Supreme Court oral arguments in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. This case considers if a citizen can sue a state in the court of a different state. This raises a variety of substantial questions concerning federalism and state sovereign immunity. In Nevada v. Hall (1979), the Supreme Court rejected that sister-state immunity was implicit in the Constitution. Today in Hyatt, 44 states, among others, are asking the Court to overturn that decision and protect states from suit in other state’s courts. Professor Stephen Sachs will discuss how the Court approached this case at oral arguments and its implications on the future of state sovereign immunity.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2124federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/dispatches-from-the-patent-wars-the-highFeaturing:
Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Director, Media, Entertainment and Technology Law Program, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Los Angeles
Prof. Thomas F. Cotter, Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kristen J. Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16748312Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmerican patent law has witnessed a number of high-profile patent wars throughout history and today is no exception. One of the latest chapters is the ongoing battle between Apple and its chip supplier Qualcomm. Among the highlights in this saga,...Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Director, Media, Entertainment and Technology Law Program, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Los Angeles
Prof. Thomas F. Cotter, Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kristen J. Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3228corporations,intellectual property,international law & trade,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/sanctuary-city-state-litigation-update-w_1Featuring:
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16747225Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:00:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe litigation over California's "sanctuary state" law raises important federalism questions that go far beyond the specific issue of immigration policy. The outcome will have a significant impact on potential future state efforts to restrict...Featuring:
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3215federalism,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-tennesseeFeaturing:
Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16688858Fri, 11 Jan 2019 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor the first time in over a decade, the Supreme Court has taken a case that could fundamentally alter the way that alcohol is regulated. In Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd, which will be argued January 16, the Court will...Featuring:
Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2683federalism,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-merck-shaFeaturing:
Douglas G. Smith, P.C., Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16687702Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the nature of the evidence defendants must produce to demonstrate that state law tort claims are preempted by federal law and whether such questions may be...Featuring:
Douglas G. Smith, P.C., Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1738litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-diversity-delusion"America is in crisis, from the university to the workplace. Toxic ideas first spread by higher education have undermined humanistic values, fueled intolerance, and widened divisions in our larger culture. Chaucer, Shakespeare and Milton? Oppressive. American history? Tyranny. Professors correcting grammar and spelling, or employers hiring by merit? Racist and sexist. Students emerge into the working world believing that human beings are defined by their skin color, gender, and sexual preference, and that oppression based on these characteristics is the American experience. Speech that challenges these campus orthodoxies is silenced with brute force.
The Diversity Delusion argues that the root of this problem is the belief in America’s endemic racism and sexism, a belief that has engendered a metastasizing diversity bureaucracy in society and academia. Diversity commissars denounce meritocratic standards as discriminatory, enforce hiring quotas, and teach students and adults alike to think of themselves as perpetual victims. From #MeToo mania that blurs flirtations with criminal acts, to implicit bias and diversity compliance training that sees racism in every interaction, Heather Mac Donald argues that we are creating a nation of narrowed minds, primed for grievance, and that we are putting our competitive edge at risk.
But there is hope in the works of authors, composers, and artists who have long inspired the best in us. Compiling the author’s decades of research and writing on the subject, The Diversity Delusion calls for a return to the classical liberal pursuits of open-minded inquiry and expression, by which everyone can discover a common humanity."


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16687088Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:00:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyHeather MacDonald discusses her new book: The Diversity Delusion: "America is in crisis, from the university to the workplace. Toxic ideas first spread by higher education have undermined humanistic values, fueled intolerance, and widened divisions..."America is in crisis, from the university to the workplace. Toxic ideas first spread by higher education have undermined humanistic values, fueled intolerance, and widened divisions in our larger culture. Chaucer, Shakespeare and Milton? Oppressive. American history? Tyranny. Professors correcting grammar and spelling, or employers hiring by merit? Racist and sexist. Students emerge into the working world believing that human beings are defined by their skin color, gender, and sexual preference, and that oppression based on these characteristics is the American experience. Speech that challenges these campus orthodoxies is silenced with brute force.
The Diversity Delusion argues that the root of this problem is the belief in America’s endemic racism and sexism, a belief that has engendered a metastasizing diversity bureaucracy in society and academia. Diversity commissars denounce meritocratic standards as discriminatory, enforce hiring quotas, and teach students and adults alike to think of themselves as perpetual victims. From #MeToo mania that blurs flirtations with criminal acts, to implicit bias and diversity compliance training that sees racism in every interaction, Heather Mac Donald argues that we are creating a nation of narrowed minds, primed for grievance, and that we are putting our competitive edge at risk.
But there is hope in the works of authors, composers, and artists who have long inspired the best in us. Compiling the author’s decades of research and writing on the subject, The Diversity Delusion calls for a return to the classical liberal pursuits of open-minded inquiry and expression, by which everyone can discover a common humanity."


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3061civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-weyerhaeuser-vBut, in 2012, under cover of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated more than 1,500 acres of this property owned by the Poitevent family and Weyerhaeuser a “critical habitat” for the endangered dusky gopher frog. That designation jeopardized development plans for the property that had been in place for years. In the landowners’ view, the designation amounted to a de facto uncompensated taking of the property for the frog
Moreover, no one in the state of Louisiana had spotted the frog in 50 years, and the frog would not survive on the property if it was moved to Louisiana. The only place the frog is found today is nearly 70 miles away from the property—in Mississippi. By locking down land on behalf of a frog that doesn’t - and cannot - live there because of the conditions of the property, the federal government - by its own admission - took an estimated $34 million in economic activity away from the Poitevents and Weyerhaeuser.
On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that the Fish & Wildlife Service must show that “critical habitat” for an endangered species must in fact be habitat for a species before it can be designated as such. Moreover, in an important administrative law decision, the Court also held that the agency’s decision not to exclude the Poitevent and Weyerhaeuser property from the designation - despite the severe economic impact of the designation to the land owners - was judicially reviewable under the APA. The case is now remanded to the Fifth Circuit for it to consider anew in light of the High Court’s unanimous decision.
Featuring:
Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16352186Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:00:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyEdward Poitevent’s family has owned timber-rich land in Louisiana since Reconstruction. In the 1990s, Weyerhaeuser Company acquired a lease of the Poitevent property for its timber operations, and Weyerhaeuser also purchased a small piece of the...But, in 2012, under cover of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated more than 1,500 acres of this property owned by the Poitevent family and Weyerhaeuser a “critical habitat” for the endangered dusky gopher frog. That designation jeopardized development plans for the property that had been in place for years. In the landowners’ view, the designation amounted to a de facto uncompensated taking of the property for the frog
Moreover, no one in the state of Louisiana had spotted the frog in 50 years, and the frog would not survive on the property if it was moved to Louisiana. The only place the frog is found today is nearly 70 miles away from the property—in Mississippi. By locking down land on behalf of a frog that doesn’t - and cannot - live there because of the conditions of the property, the federal government - by its own admission - took an estimated $34 million in economic activity away from the Poitevents and Weyerhaeuser.
On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that the Fish & Wildlife Service must show that “critical habitat” for an endangered species must in fact be habitat for a species before it can be designated as such. Moreover, in an important administrative law decision, the Court also held that the agency’s decision not to exclude the Poitevent and Weyerhaeuser property from the designation - despite the severe economic impact of the designation to the land owners - was judicially reviewable under the APA. The case is now remanded to the Fifth Circuit for it to consider anew in light of the High Court’s unanimous decision.
Featuring:
Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3059environmental & energy law,environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-timbs-v-iOn November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to states, just as it has applied to the federal government since 1791.
Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Tyson Timbs, and Director of IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, will discuss the oral arguments in this teleforum.
Featuring:

Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16350258Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:00:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Timbs v. Indiana, after Tyson Timbs pled guilty to drug charges, the State of Indiana civilly forfeited his vehicle on the theory that he used the vehicle to transport drugs. A state trial court ruled that forfeiture of the $42,000 vehicle for the...On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to states, just as it has applied to the federal government since 1791.
Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Tyson Timbs, and Director of IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, will discuss the oral arguments in this teleforum.
Featuring:

Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1575administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-apple-inc
Please join us as Mr. Cory L. Andrews, who filed an amicus curiae brief in the case on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation, attended oral argument and will discuss the case’s likely outcome and impact.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues-paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16333592Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, November 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Apple, Inc. v. Pepper. At issue is whether Apple device (e.g., iPhone, iPad, etc.) users who buy apps from Apple’s App Store may sue Apple for alleged antitrust...
Please join us as Mr. Cory L. Andrews, who filed an amicus curiae brief in the case on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation, attended oral argument and will discuss the case’s likely outcome and impact.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues-paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1871corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/new-nafta-or-else-whatFeaturing:
Amb. Antonio Garza, Counsel, White & Case, and former U.S. ambassador to Mexico
Andy Keiser, Principal, Navigators Global, and former chief of staff to House Intelligence Committee
Prof. Timothy Meyer, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, and expert on foreign relations law and trade law
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16334420Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:00:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast month, the Trump administration announced completion of a U.S.-Canada-Mexico-Agreement, intended to supersede the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. Can the new agreement be approved before the new Congress takes office in January? Would...Featuring:
Amb. Antonio Garza, Counsel, White & Case, and former U.S. ambassador to Mexico
Andy Keiser, Principal, Navigators Global, and former chief of staff to House Intelligence Committee
Prof. Timothy Meyer, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, and expert on foreign relations law and trade law
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3405international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-the-once-and-future-workerFeaturing:
Oren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Adam J. White, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16331851Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his new book, The Once and Future Worker, Manhattan Institute scholar Oren Cass challenges our basic assumptions about what prosperity means and where it comes from. The nation’s economic consensus has long regarded the economy as a...Featuring:
Oren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Adam J. White, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2982culture,labor & employment law,philosophy,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-legal-battle-to-enforce-janus-v-afscFeaturing:
William L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16331780Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June 2018, the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME held it unconstitutional under the First Amendment for the government to compel public employees to pay union dues or fees without their prior consent. This triggered a wave of litigation to enforce...Featuring:
William L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2162labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-clean-water-act-and-groundwater-pollThis Federalist Society Teleforum will address the arguments pro and con for construing the Clean Water Act to directly regulate groundwater pollution, as well as the larger policy concerns raised by increased federal involvement in an area of traditional state and local competence.
Featuring:
Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16178061Fri, 09 Nov 2018 09:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe scope of the Clean Water Act is a notoriously difficult question. Attention has largely focused on the extent to which the Act reaches wetlands, arroyos, ponds, and other surface features that have only slight connections to traditional navigable...This Federalist Society Teleforum will address the arguments pro and con for construing the Clean Water Act to directly regulate groundwater pollution, as well as the larger policy concerns raised by increased federal involvement in an area of traditional state and local competence.
Featuring:
Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2634environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-jam-v-intEdwin D. Williamson will address the concerns at stake here, including the involvement of U.S. courts in international human rights issues (including environmental).
Featuring:
Edwin D. Williamson, Retired Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16171135Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:00:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe issue at hand in Jam v. International Finance Corp. is whether the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), which gives international organizations the “same immunity” as sovereigns have from suits, confers the same type of...Edwin D. Williamson will address the concerns at stake here, including the involvement of U.S. courts in international human rights issues (including environmental).
Featuring:
Edwin D. Williamson, Retired Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2001international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-sturgeon-v-frost-oral-aFeaturing:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16161804Wed, 07 Nov 2018 19:00:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Sturgeon has been in litigation with the National Park Service for a decade, including two trips to the Supreme Court, over whether he can use his hovercraft to travel on Alaska’s Nation River through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National...Featuring:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3135environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/return-to-sender-the-u-s-challenge-to-thFeaturing:
James I. Campbell Jr., Lawyer and Consultant on Issues Relating to International Postal Policy
Patrick Hedren, Vice President for Labor, Legal and Regulatory Policy, National Association of Manufacturers
Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director, Global Security at the National Security Institute, George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16152890Tue, 06 Nov 2018 16:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyA few weeks ago, the Trump Administration initiated the process to withdraw from the 144 year old Universal Postal Union (UPU) because UPU agreements provide that the Postal Service must deliver inbound postal packages for rates that are substantially...Featuring:
James I. Campbell Jr., Lawyer and Consultant on Issues Relating to International Postal Policy
Patrick Hedren, Vice President for Labor, Legal and Regulatory Policy, National Association of Manufacturers
Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director, Global Security at the National Security Institute, George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3136international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-home-shaHowever cities nationwide are cracking down on home-sharing, thus violating fundamental constitutional rights, imposing arbitrary searches on homeowners and guests, discriminating against non-residents, subjecting homeowners to astronomical fines, and penalizing responsible home-sharers in order to eliminate the problem of a few bad actors.
Christina Sandefur, who is often involved in litigation protecting the rights of responsible home-sharers nationwide, will survey some of the most egregious home-sharing regulations; explain how these restrictions, while aimed at the use of property, actually infringe upon other constitutional rights; and propose an alternative way that cities can address legitimate nuisance concerns without depriving Americans of fundamental freedoms.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16149328Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:00:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyHome-sharing, a centuries-old American tradition of homeowners allowing visitors to stay in their homes rather than in hotels, has been made more efficient by online platforms like Airbnb and Homeaway that enable homeowners and travelers to connect...However cities nationwide are cracking down on home-sharing, thus violating fundamental constitutional rights, imposing arbitrary searches on homeowners and guests, discriminating against non-residents, subjecting homeowners to astronomical fines, and penalizing responsible home-sharers in order to eliminate the problem of a few bad actors.
Christina Sandefur, who is often involved in litigation protecting the rights of responsible home-sharers nationwide, will survey some of the most egregious home-sharing regulations; explain how these restrictions, while aimed at the use of property, actually infringe upon other constitutional rights; and propose an alternative way that cities can address legitimate nuisance concerns without depriving Americans of fundamental freedoms.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3759administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,environmental law & property r,property law,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-frank-v-gaos-oral-argumTed Frank runs an organization that objects to class action settlements he deems problematic. He objected to a settlement in a privacy lawsuit against Google on the ground that all the money that did not go to attorneys’ fees and other transaction costs (some several million dollars) was going to charity. Class members got nothing besides changes to Google’s privacy disclosures. Frank says that cy pres should never be counted when the court assesses whether a settlement is fair. But, if it is counted, courts should always try to distribute money to class members before ever resorting to cy pres. Mr. Frank also takes issues with the charities that received the money in the Google case.
The class action lawyers and Google say cy pres has been used for decades and there is nothing wrong with it when it is impractical to distribute the money (the class here comprises 140 million people); the charity will indirectly serve the class’s interests, and there is no conflict of interest on the part of the judge or lawyers in selecting the charities. The issues of Frank v. Gaos as related in oral arguments are further discussed in this teleforum.
Featuring:
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16142350Mon, 05 Nov 2018 18:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe case of Frank v. Gaos presents the question of whether and in what circumstances courts can approve class action settlements that send all or part of the settlement to charity rather than to class members. The payments to charity are known as...Ted Frank runs an organization that objects to class action settlements he deems problematic. He objected to a settlement in a privacy lawsuit against Google on the ground that all the money that did not go to attorneys’ fees and other transaction costs (some several million dollars) was going to charity. Class members got nothing besides changes to Google’s privacy disclosures. Frank says that cy pres should never be counted when the court assesses whether a settlement is fair. But, if it is counted, courts should always try to distribute money to class members before ever resorting to cy pres. Mr. Frank also takes issues with the charities that received the money in the Google case.
The class action lawyers and Google say cy pres has been used for decades and there is nothing wrong with it when it is impractical to distribute the money (the class here comprises 140 million people); the charity will indirectly serve the class’s interests, and there is no conflict of interest on the part of the judge or lawyers in selecting the charities. The issues of Frank v. Gaos as related in oral arguments are further discussed in this teleforum.
Featuring:
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2951litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-teleforum-preview-frankThe U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos to consider whether and in what circumstances cy pres is permitted in class action settlements.
Class counsel brought a putative class action against Google alleging Stored Communications Act violations entitling over 100 million class members to $1000/violation statutory damages. Before a motion to dismiss could be decided, the parties settled. Class counsel would receive over $2.1 million (over $1000/hour for every lawyer who worked on the case) and the class would receive nothing. The parties justified this settlement because of a provision providing for cy pres donations: about $5 million to five organizations that would use the money on Internet-related issues. At the fairness hearing, class member Ted Frank objected that the settlement unfairly benefited class counsel at the expense of the class, and objected that the cy pres money was going to organizations affiliated with Google or class counsel, such as Chicago-Kent Law School, the alma mater of one of the attorneys. The district court stated the cy pres did not pass the “smell test,” but approved the settlement under Ninth Circuit precedent, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Ted Frank, litigation director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that a settlement where attorneys receive millions and the class receives nothing by definition fails the Rule 23(e) requirement that settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A bright line rule on “fairness” requiring that attorney fees be proportional to the direct recovery to the class would provide guidance to lower courts, align counsels’ incentives with the class they represent, and reduce the incentive to bring low-value class actions that function as a mechanism to extract fees.
The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the case. Alida Kass, president and chief counsel, will discuss the questions at issue in Frank v. Gaos. The argument is scheduled for October 31.
Featuring:
Alida Kass, President and Chief Counsel, New Jersey Civil Justice Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16142225Mon, 05 Nov 2018 18:00:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat is the purpose of class actions? To provide compensation to class members? Or to provide compensation for attorneys? The Seventh Circuit has taken a skeptical view of settlements that provide fees for counsel but no meaningful benefit for the...The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos to consider whether and in what circumstances cy pres is permitted in class action settlements.
Class counsel brought a putative class action against Google alleging Stored Communications Act violations entitling over 100 million class members to $1000/violation statutory damages. Before a motion to dismiss could be decided, the parties settled. Class counsel would receive over $2.1 million (over $1000/hour for every lawyer who worked on the case) and the class would receive nothing. The parties justified this settlement because of a provision providing for cy pres donations: about $5 million to five organizations that would use the money on Internet-related issues. At the fairness hearing, class member Ted Frank objected that the settlement unfairly benefited class counsel at the expense of the class, and objected that the cy pres money was going to organizations affiliated with Google or class counsel, such as Chicago-Kent Law School, the alma mater of one of the attorneys. The district court stated the cy pres did not pass the “smell test,” but approved the settlement under Ninth Circuit precedent, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Ted Frank, litigation director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that a settlement where attorneys receive millions and the class receives nothing by definition fails the Rule 23(e) requirement that settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A bright line rule on “fairness” requiring that attorney fees be proportional to the direct recovery to the class would provide guidance to lower courts, align counsels’ incentives with the class they represent, and reduce the incentive to bring low-value class actions that function as a mechanism to extract fees.
The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the case. Alida Kass, president and chief counsel, will discuss the questions at issue in Frank v. Gaos. The argument is scheduled for October 31.
Featuring:
Alida Kass, President and Chief Counsel, New Jersey Civil Justice Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1253litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/has-nato-expanded-and-evolved-beyond-itsFeaturing:
Ambassador Kurt Volker, Executive Director, McCain Institute
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Moderator: Daniel West

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16143599Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:00:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs NATO launches Trident Juncture, exercises that will demonstrate the organization's largest show of force for 20 years, allies and foes alike will monitor performance. At a time when tensions are rising due to a belligerent Russia and autocratic...Featuring:
Ambassador Kurt Volker, Executive Director, McCain Institute
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Moderator: Daniel West

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3106foreign policy,international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-finance-and-philosophy-why-wFeaturing:
Alex Polluck, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Af, American Bankers Association
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16142307Mon, 05 Nov 2018 14:10:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyFinance and Philosophy provides a concise and witty account of how bankers and financial regulators think, of the alleged causes of the cycles of booms and busts, of the implicit and often un-thought-out assumptions shaping retirement finance, fiat...Featuring:
Alex Polluck, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Af, American Bankers Association
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3535financial services,financial services & e-commerc,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/update-workers-speech-rights-in-the-wakeFeaturing:
Mr. Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16094232Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:00:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn its Janus v. AFSCME decision this past June, the Supreme Court held that it violated the First Amendment for states to force their employees to subsidize the speech of labor unions. But are workers getting the relief that Janus promised? Rather...Featuring:
Mr. Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2474free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/guidance-against-guidanceThis Teleforum will discuss the implications of these statements and this effort. Will this step rein in regulation through adjudication? Will this step reduce the issuance of guidance itself leading to enforcement against behaviors that could have been redirected through guidance? What role should the federal enforcement authorities play in signaling through guidance and statements what they find problematic when the laws are broad enough to not provide a clear message?
Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16093417Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:15:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Trump Administration has made clear that it is engaged in a regulatory reform effort. One stated goal of that effort is to ensure that administrative enforcement actions rely on legally binding authority such as laws and regulations and that...This Teleforum will discuss the implications of these statements and this effort. Will this step rein in regulation through adjudication? Will this step reduce the issuance of guidance itself leading to enforcement against behaviors that could have been redirected through guidance? What role should the federal enforcement authorities play in signaling through guidance and statements what they find problematic when the laws are broad enough to not provide a clear message?
Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2305administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/diversity-and-elimination-of-bias-cle-crCLE will only be applied for in these three states.
There will be no charge for this event.
Electronic Sign-in link: (CLICK HERE)
CLE Materials: Link (CLICK HERE)
Diversity CLE Teleforum 2018: Litigation For A Higher Cause
Representing a client with religious or spiritual motivations can pose unique problems for attorneys in representing these clients. Problems might occur surrounding how the client wants the case to be handled, or how the attorney chooses to litigate the case. In dealing with clients and how to possibly resolve issues surrounding religion, the best source to discover what can and cannot be done is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). While each state can determine whether or not to adopt the MRPC, it serves as a baseline in determining the course of action if a dispute regarding the client's religion is involved.
Important rules that might help to answer these questions could be Rule 1.3, 1.16, 2.1, and 8.4. For Rule 1.3 (Diligence), the attorney has the duty to act with diligence in representing the client and as stated by comment 1 of this rule act "despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer." The lawyer may also act with professional discretion in how the action is handled. Therefore, the attorney has some room to act in the best interest of the client if there is some issue surrounding religion or spirituality.
Rule 1.16 (Declining Or Terminating Representation), the attorney can decline to take a prospective client's case or withdraw from the case if the client wants the attorney to break some law, the client wants to choose a course of action repugnant and is fundamentally disagreeable to the attorney. This rule also provides the ability for the attorney to refuse to help a prospective client if before the relationship occurs the attorney might be aware that a possible issue could arise due to the client's religious or spiritual beliefs.
Rule 2.1 (Advisor), in performing their duties, an attorney can give other advice rather than legal, which can include moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the case. Here, the attorney has the ability to make the client aware of how their religious or spiritual obligations could affect the case, and whether pursuing those options would create the best outcome.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) applies because it deals with professional misconduct and includes language that prohibits attorneys from discriminating on the basis of a number of factors including religion. The language referring to anti-discrimination is part g of the rule. Many states have not adopted this rule or have adopted the rule in part. But a violation of Rule 8.4 could result in a disciplinary action against the attorney.
Featuring:
Prof. James A. Sonne, Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law School
Walter Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice

**Additional CLE Instructions:

Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Monday, October 22.
An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16093312Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:00:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to attorneys from Minnesota, New York, and California, to fill the CLE credit known as Diversity/Elimination of Bias credit. CLE will only be applied for in these three states. There will be no...CLE will only be applied for in these three states.
There will be no charge for this event.
Electronic Sign-in link: (CLICK HERE)
CLE Materials: Link (CLICK HERE)
Diversity CLE Teleforum 2018: Litigation For A Higher Cause
Representing a client with religious or spiritual motivations can pose unique problems for attorneys in representing these clients. Problems might occur surrounding how the client wants the case to be handled, or how the attorney chooses to litigate the case. In dealing with clients and how to possibly resolve issues surrounding religion, the best source to discover what can and cannot be done is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). While each state can determine whether or not to adopt the MRPC, it serves as a baseline in determining the course of action if a dispute regarding the client's religion is involved.
Important rules that might help to answer these questions could be Rule 1.3, 1.16, 2.1, and 8.4. For Rule 1.3 (Diligence), the attorney has the duty to act with diligence in representing the client and as stated by comment 1 of this rule act "despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer." The lawyer may also act with professional discretion in how the action is handled. Therefore, the attorney has some room to act in the best interest of the client if there is some issue surrounding religion or spirituality.
Rule 1.16 (Declining Or Terminating Representation), the attorney can decline to take a prospective client's case or withdraw from the case if the client wants the attorney to break some law, the client wants to choose a course of action repugnant and is fundamentally disagreeable to the attorney. This rule also provides the ability for the attorney to refuse to help a prospective client if before the relationship occurs the attorney might be aware that a possible issue could arise due to the client's religious or spiritual beliefs.
Rule 2.1 (Advisor), in performing their duties, an attorney can give other advice rather than legal, which can include moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the case. Here, the attorney has the ability to make the client aware of how their religious or spiritual obligations could affect the case, and whether pursuing those options would create the best outcome.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) applies because it deals with professional misconduct and includes language that prohibits attorneys from discriminating on the basis of a number of factors including religion. The language referring to anti-discrimination is part g of the rule. Many states have not adopted this rule or have adopted the rule in part. But a violation of Rule 8.4 could result in a disciplinary action against the attorney.
Featuring:
Prof. James A. Sonne, Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law School
Walter Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice

**Additional CLE Instructions:

Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Monday, October 22.
An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation...]]>3669professional responsibility &,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ethics-cle-teleforum-2018-new-issue-in-lCLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded.

Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.
Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2018 and beyond:
In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”
The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).
To date, seven states have rejected the rule: Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have rejected the proposal. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety.
In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the constitutional issues surounding Model Rule 8.4(g). Specifically, he will address how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) calls into question the state bar’s ability to regulate attorney speech, and how it will affect attorneys in their practice of law throughout the next few years.
Professor Blackman will also give his insights on the rising relevance of social media in regards to the law, and what implications exist for practicing attorneys who use social media.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston

Call begins at 1:55 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.
One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*
$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)
Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.
Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.**No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit.

*Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit is not guaranteed, as the decision to accredit the course is made by each individual state bar, but all states that attorneys request will be applied to.
**Additional CLE Instructions:

Please check your confirmation email for the link to the ticket, where there will be a drop box link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Thursday, October 18.
A registration page link will be sent to you the afternoon of October 18. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, preferably within the first 5 minutes of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be provided with your confirmation email, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16051392Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Teleforum CLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded. Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket The Federalist Society...CLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded.

Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.
Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2018 and beyond:
In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”
The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).
To date, seven states have rejected the rule: Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have rejected the proposal. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety.
In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the constitutional issues surounding Model Rule 8.4(g). Specifically, he will address how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) calls into question the state bar’s ability to regulate attorney speech, and how it will affect attorneys in their practice of law throughout the next few years.
Professor Blackman will also give his insights on the rising relevance of social media in regards to the law, and what implications exist for practicing attorneys who use social media.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston

Call begins at 1:55 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.
One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*
$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)
Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.
Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.**No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit.

*Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit is not guaranteed, as the decision to accredit the course is made by...]]>3706professional responsibility &cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/book-review-judicial-fortitude-the-last-The Hon. Peter J. Wallison joins us on this Teleforum to discuss the book and give some additional insights,
Featuring:
Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/16051197Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:00:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this book, Peter J. Wallison argues that the administrative agencies of the executive branch have gradually taken over the legislative role of Congress, resulting in what many call the administrative state. The judiciary bears the major...The Hon. Peter J. Wallison joins us on this Teleforum to discuss the book and give some additional insights,
Featuring:
Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2006administrative law & regulatio,constitution,federal courts,regulatory transparency projec,state courtscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-reader-on-net-neutrality-and-restoringThe book is now available in print on Amazon here for $9.95 or for your Kindle here for $2.99. And it is available from Apple and various other digital bookstores here for $2.99.
Featuring:
Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation
Seth Cooper, Senior Fellow, The Free State Foundation
Daniel Lyons, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School and member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors
Blair Levin, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15986995Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:00:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn December 2017, the Federal Communications Commission adopted its landmark Restoring Internet Freedom Order that repealed the public utility-like regulations which were applied to broadband Internet service providers by the Obama...The book is now available in print on Amazon here for $9.95 or for your Kindle here for $2.99. And it is available from Apple and various other digital bookstores here for $2.99.
Featuring:
Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation
Seth Cooper, Senior Fellow, The Free State Foundation
Daniel Lyons, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School and member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors
Blair Levin, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3267telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-at-t-and-time-warner-mThe Antitrust Division appealed the District Court’s ruling. Joshua Wright joins us to discuss the merits of the appeal, as well as the greater implications for national antitrust law.
Featuring:
Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15947698Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June 2018, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of AT&T in the $85.4 billion proposed merger of AT&T and Time Warner. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon presided over the case and held that the government had...The Antitrust Division appealed the District Court’s ruling. Joshua Wright joins us to discuss the merits of the appeal, as well as the greater implications for national antitrust law.
Featuring:
Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2871cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-right-to-be-forgottenEarlier this year, the High Court of Great Britain ruled against Google in a landmark court case, and sided in favor of advocates for the right to be forgotten, ruling that Google had to comply with a businessman who requested his previous criminal record of a sentence served over a decade previously be removed from the search engine.
Currently Google is again before the European Court of Justice, seeking to win a case against a French data protection authority. The data protection authority argues with the support of both the French and Austrian governments, that the right to be forgotten should apply worldwide. Google is joined by various media companies to combat this approach, and the decision will undoubtedly have significant implications for search engines and social media giants including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter. The issue poses tough questions for how to balance individual rights to privacy, with the public right to information.
Professors Jane Roberta Bambauer, and Meg Leta Jones, join us to discuss and debate this controversial issue, and predict what it may mean for global corporations moving forward.
Featuring:
Prof. Meg Leta Jones, Assistant Professor of Communication, Culture & Technology, Georgetown University
Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law, James E Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15917472Tue, 09 Oct 2018 15:30:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe “right to be forgotten” refers to the right of individuals to have a company remove or delete their personal data when the company has no apparent justification for continuing to keep it. The “right to be forgotten” was...Earlier this year, the High Court of Great Britain ruled against Google in a landmark court case, and sided in favor of advocates for the right to be forgotten, ruling that Google had to comply with a businessman who requested his previous criminal record of a sentence served over a decade previously be removed from the search engine.
Currently Google is again before the European Court of Justice, seeking to win a case against a French data protection authority. The data protection authority argues with the support of both the French and Austrian governments, that the right to be forgotten should apply worldwide. Google is joined by various media companies to combat this approach, and the decision will undoubtedly have significant implications for search engines and social media giants including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter. The issue poses tough questions for how to balance individual rights to privacy, with the public right to information.
Professors Jane Roberta Bambauer, and Meg Leta Jones, join us to discuss and debate this controversial issue, and predict what it may mean for global corporations moving forward.
Featuring:
Prof. Meg Leta Jones, Assistant Professor of Communication, Culture & Technology, Georgetown University
Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law, James E Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3160civil rights,corporations,criminal law & procedure,international law & trade,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-gundy-v-u_1The nondelegation doctrine operates to prevent Congress from delegating the lawmaking power the people vested in it to another branch or any other entity, but what is the core lawmaking power that Congress cannot delegate? How broadly can Congress phrase its legislation, and how much can it delegate to the regulatory agencies to fill in? The courts’ role in enforcing the constitutional delegation line is even more hotly debated. No justice has disagreed that the nondelegation rule is essential to maintaining the constitutional Separation of Powers, but some have expressed concern in prior decades about a judicially manageable standard for the courts to apply. In recent years, the Court’s lax enforcement of its “intelligible principle” standard from 1928 has been criticized by Justice Thomas, then Judge Gorsuch and many other commentators. The Gundy case presents the Court with a range of options, including from amici who have asked the Court to provide teeth to its intelligible principle standard or to adopt a textually-based standard that would more fully restore the delegation doctrine. How far will the majority go to revive the nondelegation rule, and will concurring justices urge additional movement in the same direction? Or will the doctrine, now on life support, be further diminished?
Todd Gaziano is the counsel of record for Pacific Legal Foundation’s brief in Gundy supporting reversal of the decision below, and joins us to discuss the oral arguments.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15917034Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySince 1789, the Supreme Court has struck down only two laws on “nondelegation” grounds, both in 1935. Gundy v. United States will potentially be a third such ruling, depending on whether the Deputy Solicitor General can convince the...The nondelegation doctrine operates to prevent Congress from delegating the lawmaking power the people vested in it to another branch or any other entity, but what is the core lawmaking power that Congress cannot delegate? How broadly can Congress phrase its legislation, and how much can it delegate to the regulatory agencies to fill in? The courts’ role in enforcing the constitutional delegation line is even more hotly debated. No justice has disagreed that the nondelegation rule is essential to maintaining the constitutional Separation of Powers, but some have expressed concern in prior decades about a judicially manageable standard for the courts to apply. In recent years, the Court’s lax enforcement of its “intelligible principle” standard from 1928 has been criticized by Justice Thomas, then Judge Gorsuch and many other commentators. The Gundy case presents the Court with a range of options, including from amici who have asked the Court to provide teeth to its intelligible principle standard or to adopt a textually-based standard that would more fully restore the delegation doctrine. How far will the majority go to revive the nondelegation rule, and will concurring justices urge additional movement in the same direction? Or will the doctrine, now on life support, be further diminished?
Todd Gaziano is the counsel of record for Pacific Legal Foundation’s brief in Gundy supporting reversal of the decision below, and joins us to discuss the oral arguments.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2648administrative law & regulatio,constitution,criminal law & procedure,federalism,federalism & separation of pow,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/corporate-governance-in-2018-social-resp
Be it guns or global warming, a fascinating trend is unfolding in the Trump era: Corporations, under intense social pressure, are filling a void left bygovernmental gridlock or avoidance. (emphasis added) … [t]his phenomenon is inspired not by the pure benevolence of corporations. Instead, it’s intense pressure from social media mobs …

Seeking a remedy to the “governmental gridlock,” Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act,which would seem to codify political government involvement in what has historically been viewed as the exercise of free market capitalism by U.S. based business entities.

Charles Elson and Mark Nance join us to discuss this trend and what the law regarding a board’s duty to stakeholders is and should be.

Featuring:

Charles Elson, the Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., Chair in Corporate Governance and the director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

Mark Nance, Senior Vice President and Global General Counsel for Mylan N.V

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15917524Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAxios recently opined that: Be it guns or global warming, a fascinating trend is unfolding in the Trump era: Corporations, under intense social pressure, are filling a void left bygovernmental gridlock or avoidance. (emphasis added) …...
Be it guns or global warming, a fascinating trend is unfolding in the Trump era: Corporations, under intense social pressure, are filling a void left bygovernmental gridlock or avoidance. (emphasis added) … [t]his phenomenon is inspired not by the pure benevolence of corporations. Instead, it’s intense pressure from social media mobs …

Seeking a remedy to the “governmental gridlock,” Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act,which would seem to codify political government involvement in what has historically been viewed as the exercise of free market capitalism by U.S. based business entities.

Charles Elson and Mark Nance join us to discuss this trend and what the law regarding a board’s duty to stakeholders is and should be.

Featuring:

Charles Elson, the Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., Chair in Corporate Governance and the director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

Mark Nance, Senior Vice President and Global General Counsel for Mylan N.V

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3088cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/outsourcing-the-boardTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15891343Fri, 05 Oct 2018 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this groundbreaking work, Stephen M. Bainbridge and M. Todd Henderson change the conversation about corporate governance by examining the origins, roles, and performance of boards with a simple question in mind: why does the law require governance...Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2924corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-knick-v-township-of-scoWhen Ms. Knick tried to protect her property rights in state court, the state court held that it could not hear her case until the town brought civil enforcement proceedings against her. So Ms. Knick filed a takings claim in federal court. But that court dismissed her claim as unripe, because of a 1985 decision, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, in which the Supreme Court held that a federal takings claim against state or local government is not ripe until after the property owner pursues a takings claim in state court.
But in 2005, in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court held that once litigated in state court, the full faith and credit statute bars federal courts from hearing the related case. In other words, the very action that ripens a federal takings claim also destroys the claim. In short, Williamson County closed the federal courthouse doors to federal takings claims against state and local governments. Will Knick open those doors once again?
Christina Martin is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and is co-counsel and second chair for Rose Knick in Knick v. Township of Scott.
Featuring:
Christina M. Martin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15890426Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Knick v. Township of Scott, the Supreme Court will consider overturning a 33-year old precedent that prevents property owners from filing federal “takings” claims against state and local governments in federal court. The case arose...When Ms. Knick tried to protect her property rights in state court, the state court held that it could not hear her case until the town brought civil enforcement proceedings against her. So Ms. Knick filed a takings claim in federal court. But that court dismissed her claim as unripe, because of a 1985 decision, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, in which the Supreme Court held that a federal takings claim against state or local government is not ripe until after the property owner pursues a takings claim in state court.
But in 2005, in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court held that once litigated in state court, the full faith and credit statute bars federal courts from hearing the related case. In other words, the very action that ripens a federal takings claim also destroys the claim. In short, Williamson County closed the federal courthouse doors to federal takings claims against state and local governments. Will Knick open those doors once again?
Christina Martin is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and is co-counsel and second chair for Rose Knick in Knick v. Township of Scott.
Featuring:
Christina M. Martin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1520environmental law & property r,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-weyerhaeuser-v-united-sThe government designated the Louisiana property critical habitat for the “shy frog” even though the frog has not been seen anywhere near the land—let alone in Louisiana at all—in more than 50 years; this led the Service to designate it unoccupied critical habitat. Because the Landowners did not believe the Endangered Species Act and the Constitution allowed the agency to designate their Louisiana land critical habitat for the frog, they challenged the designation as exceeding the agency’s statutory and constitutional authority. That challenge has now hopped its way to the Supreme Court, which will hear argument in the case on October 1, 2018—the first day of the new Court term. The case will have implications for both environmental law and administrative law practice throughout the country.

Featuring:
Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15887187Fri, 05 Oct 2018 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or agency) designated 1,544 acres of land in Louisiana and additional land in Mississippi as “critical habitat” for the endangered dusky gopher frog. The agency made this designation...The government designated the Louisiana property critical habitat for the “shy frog” even though the frog has not been seen anywhere near the land—let alone in Louisiana at all—in more than 50 years; this led the Service to designate it unoccupied critical habitat. Because the Landowners did not believe the Endangered Species Act and the Constitution allowed the agency to designate their Louisiana land critical habitat for the frog, they challenged the designation as exceeding the agency’s statutory and constitutional authority. That challenge has now hopped its way to the Supreme Court, which will hear argument in the case on October 1, 2018—the first day of the new Court term. The case will have implications for both environmental law and administrative law practice throughout the country.

Featuring:
Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3097administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-preview-gundy-v-united-Featuring:
Sheldon Gilbert, Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement (CJE), Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15879149Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gundy v. United States. In this case the Court will once more be asked to interpret the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA). Petitioner Gundy asks the Court to review an...Featuring:
Sheldon Gilbert, Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement (CJE), Institute for Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1904administrative law & regulatio,criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/new-challenge-to-the-constitutionality-oBig Spring is urging the Court to take the case due to a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit in Collins v. Mnuchin, in which the circuit held that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency is unconstitutionally insulated from Executive Branch oversight. Big Springs argues that the similar structures at the FHFA and CFPB, and the two conflicting decisions result in a circuit split that the Supreme Court should resolve.
The Honorable C. Boyden Gray joins us to discuss various aspects of this latest challenge to the constitutionality of the CFPB.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15879090Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecently the State National Bank of Big Spring filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit's decision in June that affirmed the constitutionality of the CFPB. The case had been held in aveyance on the district...Big Spring is urging the Court to take the case due to a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit in Collins v. Mnuchin, in which the circuit held that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency is unconstitutionally insulated from Executive Branch oversight. Big Springs argues that the similar structures at the FHFA and CFPB, and the two conflicting decisions result in a circuit split that the Supreme Court should resolve.
The Honorable C. Boyden Gray joins us to discuss various aspects of this latest challenge to the constitutionality of the CFPB.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1672administrative law & regulatio,constitution,financial services,litigation,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-hartford-connecticut-mFeaturing:
Joshua Thompson, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15871528Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyBlack and Hispanic children in Hartford, Connecticut are lined up in waiting lists hundreds deep for an opportunity to go to the city’s world-class magnet schools. The schools consistently rank higher in academic achievement and graduation rates...Featuring:
Joshua Thompson, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2363civil rights,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-perfect-weapon-war-sabotage-and-fearFeaturing:
David E. Sanger, national security correspondent for the New York Times and bestselling author of The Inheritance and Confront and Conceal

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15870662Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2015, Russian hackers tunneled deep into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee, and the subsequent leaks of the emails they stole may have changed the course of American democracy. But to see the DNC hacks as Trump-centric is to...Featuring:
David E. Sanger, national security correspondent for the New York Times and bestselling author of The Inheritance and Confront and Conceal

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2831foreign policy,international law & trade,international & national secur,politics,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-future-of-chevron-deferenceFeaturing:
Professor Christopher Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Adam White, Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution
Moderator: Professor Jennifer L . Mascott, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15861575Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySkepticism of the Chevron doctrine has risen in recent years, with some commentators calling for the Court to overturn or Congress to repeal Chevron. The addition to the Supreme Court of Justice Neil Gorsuch -- a Chevron skeptic -- prompted much...Featuring:
Professor Christopher Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Adam White, Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution
Moderator: Professor Jennifer L . Mascott, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3684administrative law & regulatio,article i initiative,regulatory transparency projec,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/california-and-lead-paint-public-nuisancThe petitions raise important issues of national significance regarding the decision, which imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in public nuisance liability on three companies based on decades-old truthful advertising of a lawful product without proof that defendants caused any injury, that anyone relied on the advertisements to use lead paint on the interior of their homes, or that the defendants’ lead paint is in any home.
Amicus Curiae briefs filed in support of the Petitioners agree that California’s misuse of public nuisance in this way violates the defendants’ free speech and due process rights and puts at risk every product manufacturer that has ever done business in California.
Featuring:
Michael A Carvin, Partner, Jones Day
Representing The Sherwin-Williams Company
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Kirkland Ellis
Representing ConAgra Grocery Products

ConAgra Grocery Products Co. v. California
18-84
Issues: (1) Whether imposing massive and retroactive “public nuisance” liability without requiring proof that the defendant’s nearly century-old conduct caused any individual plaintiff any injury violates the due process clause; and (2) whether retroactively imposing massive liability based on a defendant’s nearly century-old promotion of its then-lawful products without requiring proof of reliance thereon or injury therefrom violates the First Amendment.
The Sherwin-Williams Co. v. California
18-86
Issues: (1) Whether, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, the First Amendment permits California to impose tort liability for truthfully promoting a lawful product that it finds to be hazardous in some uses; and (2) whether the due process clause allows a state to impose retroactive and grossly disproportionate public nuisance liability to inspect and abate millions of residences based on decades-old promotions without evidence that consumers relied on those promotions or that petitioner’s lead paint is in any residence.
For more information including petitioners’ and amici briefs, visit www.leadlawsuits.com.

Dial 888-752-3232 at 2:00 p.m. ET to join. This call is open to non-members and press.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15777579Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyConAgra Grocery Products Company, NL Industries, Inc., and The Sherwin-Williams Company filed petitions with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the California Court of Appeal’s decision in The People of California v. ConAgra...The petitions raise important issues of national significance regarding the decision, which imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in public nuisance liability on three companies based on decades-old truthful advertising of a lawful product without proof that defendants caused any injury, that anyone relied on the advertisements to use lead paint on the interior of their homes, or that the defendants’ lead paint is in any home.
Amicus Curiae briefs filed in support of the Petitioners agree that California’s misuse of public nuisance in this way violates the defendants’ free speech and due process rights and puts at risk every product manufacturer that has ever done business in California.
Featuring:
Michael A Carvin, Partner, Jones Day
Representing The Sherwin-Williams Company
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Kirkland Ellis
Representing ConAgra Grocery Products

ConAgra Grocery Products Co. v. California
18-84
Issues: (1) Whether imposing massive and retroactive “public nuisance” liability without requiring proof that the defendant’s nearly century-old conduct caused any individual plaintiff any injury violates the due process clause; and (2) whether retroactively imposing massive liability based on a defendant’s nearly century-old promotion of its then-lawful products without requiring proof of reliance thereon or injury therefrom violates the First Amendment.
The Sherwin-Williams Co. v. California
18-86
Issues: (1) Whether, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, the First Amendment permits California to impose tort liability for truthfully promoting a lawful product that it finds to be hazardous in some uses; and (2) whether the due process clause allows a state to impose retroactive and grossly disproportionate public nuisance liability to inspect and abate millions of residences based on decades-old promotions without evidence that consumers relied on those promotions or that petitioner’s lead paint is in any residence.
For more information including petitioners’ and amici briefs, visit www.leadlawsuits.com.

Dial 888-752-3232 at 2:00 p.m. ET to join. This call is open to non-members and press.]]>2901environmental & energy law,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/social-media-oversight-the-debate-over-rFeaturing:
Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute
Prof. Thomas W. Hazlett, H.H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics, Clemson College of Business
Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Paul Rosenzweig, Principal, Red Branch Law & Consulting PLLC
Megan Stifel, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Atlantic Council
Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15758497Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:30:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyRussian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and claims of political bias in banning users and restricting content have all led to calls for regulation and antitrust enforcement against the preeminent social media...Featuring:
Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute
Prof. Thomas W. Hazlett, H.H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics, Clemson College of Business
Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Paul Rosenzweig, Principal, Red Branch Law & Consulting PLLC
Megan Stifel, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Atlantic Council
Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3311administrative law & regulatio,corporations,regulatory transparency projec,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-third-annual-mike-lewis-memorial-tel
Mike Lewis was a naval aviator, and then a renowned law professor, widely admired by other scholars and practitioners, whether or not they agreed with his substantive conclusions. He was a great friend of the Federalist Society, appearing at dozens of lawyer and student chapter events, as well as the 2014 National Convention. He was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds a Teleforum in his honor.


Featuring:
Professor Eric Talbot Jensen, Professor of Law, The J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Professor Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15664662Fri, 07 Sep 2018 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThere is broad agreement that international law applies to cyber conflict. There is less agreement as to exactly what that means. What principles of the existing Law of Armed Conflict clearly apply to cyber attacks by nations? What questions remain...
Mike Lewis was a naval aviator, and then a renowned law professor, widely admired by other scholars and practitioners, whether or not they agreed with his substantive conclusions. He was a great friend of the Federalist Society, appearing at dozens of lawyer and student chapter events, as well as the 2014 National Convention. He was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds a Teleforum in his honor.


Featuring:
Professor Eric Talbot Jensen, Professor of Law, The J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Professor Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2845foreign policy,international law & trade,international & national secur,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/civil-rights-commissions-enforcers-of-soFeaturing:

Jeremy Tedesco, Senior counsel and Cice President of U.S. Advocacy and Administration for Alliance Defending Freedom

Herbert Grey, Attorney, Solo Practioner

Moderator: Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15648520Wed, 05 Sep 2018 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhether called Human Rights, Human Relations, or Civil Rights Commissions, many cities and counties and virtually every state has one. On the local level, the commissioners who comprise these agencies are usually either volunteers or political...Featuring:

Jeremy Tedesco, Senior counsel and Cice President of U.S. Advocacy and Administration for Alliance Defending Freedom

Herbert Grey, Attorney, Solo Practioner

Moderator: Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project]]>3515civil rights,first amendment,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ted-suhl-litigation-updateIn March 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The 8th Circuit rejected the argument made in Suhls’ appeal that the government had failed to prove that an actual agreement for money was paid in exchange for official acts. The Court rejected this argument claiming intent is all that is necessary for a bribery conviction.
Suhl is now filing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The James Madison Center for Free Speech, a nonprofit founded by James Bopp Jr., filed a friend of the court brief asking of the Supreme Court to hear Suhl’s appeal.
James Bopp joins us on this Teleforum to discuss the brief and the Ted Suhl Appeal.
Featuring:
James Bopp, Jr. General Counsel, Founder, James Madison Center for Free Speech
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15608308Thu, 30 Aug 2018 22:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 20, 2016, Ted Suhl, a former head of a behavioral health company in Arkansas, was convicted by a federal jury on four counts of bribery. The prosecution was initiated and carried out by the United States Department of Justice and Suhl was...In March 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The 8th Circuit rejected the argument made in Suhls’ appeal that the government had failed to prove that an actual agreement for money was paid in exchange for official acts. The Court rejected this argument claiming intent is all that is necessary for a bribery conviction.
Suhl is now filing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The James Madison Center for Free Speech, a nonprofit founded by James Bopp Jr., filed a friend of the court brief asking of the Supreme Court to hear Suhl’s appeal.
James Bopp joins us on this Teleforum to discuss the brief and the Ted Suhl Appeal.
Featuring:
James Bopp, Jr. General Counsel, Founder, James Madison Center for Free Speech
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2083civil rights,constitution,criminal law & procedure,professional responsibility &cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-collins-v-fhfaThe FHFA was created by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The parties challenging the FHFA’s constitutionality were shareholders of the GSEs who were seeking to invalidate an amendment to a preferred stock agreement between the Treasury and the FHFA as conservator for the GSEs that required the GSEs to pay quarterly dividends to the government equal to the GSEs’ excess net worth after accounting for prescribed capital reserves.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs, David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk, discusses the decision and its implications.
Featuring:
David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15563050Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 16, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) which oversees two government services enterprises (GSEs), is unconstitutionally structured because it is excessively insulated from Executive Branch...The FHFA was created by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The parties challenging the FHFA’s constitutionality were shareholders of the GSEs who were seeking to invalidate an amendment to a preferred stock agreement between the Treasury and the FHFA as conservator for the GSEs that required the GSEs to pay quarterly dividends to the government equal to the GSEs’ excess net worth after accounting for prescribed capital reserves.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs, David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk, discusses the decision and its implications.
Featuring:
David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1396cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/do-regulatory-reform-efforts-inevitably-This Teleforum brings together two speakers well-versed in regulation and regulatory reform. Professor Lambert and Mr. Davis will describe and discuss their differing approaches to reform, and their differing perspectives on the fundamental assumptions that undergird the current regulatory system.
Featuring:
J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia
Professor Thom Lambert, Wall Chair in Corporate Law and Governance and Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15554139Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyGovernment regulation is pervasive, complex and expensive to administer. Americans have a vital interest and real need to understand how the current regulatory system can best be improved and made to achieve its laudable objectives for health, safety...This Teleforum brings together two speakers well-versed in regulation and regulatory reform. Professor Lambert and Mr. Davis will describe and discuss their differing approaches to reform, and their differing perspectives on the fundamental assumptions that undergird the current regulatory system.
Featuring:
J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia
Professor Thom Lambert, Wall Chair in Corporate Law and Governance and Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3017administrative law & regulatio,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/regulating-cryptocurrencyFeaturing:
David Hirsch, Enforcement Attorney, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Mark W. Rasmussen, Partner, Jones Day

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15532038Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecently there has been much discussion over the proper regulation of cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICOs), as well as litigation asserting that ICOs must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Given the broad...Featuring:
David Hirsch, Enforcement Attorney, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Mark W. Rasmussen, Partner, Jones Day

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2823financial services,international law & trade,law & economics,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/west-virginia-supreme-court-in-crisisFeaturing:
Mrs. Laurie Lin, Columnist and Editorial Writer, Charleston Gazette-Mail

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15531072Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has been plagued for months with controversy over alleged overspending and other impropriety. Two justices have resigned, and the remaining three face trials in the state Senate after being impeached earlier...Featuring:
Mrs. Laurie Lin, Columnist and Editorial Writer, Charleston Gazette-Mail

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3236state courtscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/arbitration-in-the-metoo-eraFeaturing:
Prof. William H. J. Hubbard, Professor of Law University of Chicago Law School
Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15414598Fri, 03 Aug 2018 13:15:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyEmployers are increasingly turning to arbitration to reduce the costs and burdens of employment-related litigation. Proponents of arbitration contend it is often less expensive than litigation, frequently quicker, but just as fair. Moreover,...Featuring:
Prof. William H. J. Hubbard, Professor of Law University of Chicago Law School
Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3101contracts,labor & employment law,litigation,metoocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/sanctuary-citiesFurthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits state and local governments or officials from inhibiting the flow of information regarding immigrants to ICE. Seeking to enforce §1373, President Trump in 2017 issued an executive order conditioning federal grants to states and municipalities upon cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Subsequent legal challenges brought by cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia have successfully blocked the order’s enforcement, citing the Constitution’s requirement that Congress must approve any new conditions on federal funding. State and local governments, however, have also launched their own anti-sanctuary initiatives. Tennessee, for instance, banned sanctuary cities in May of this year, following Texas, whose law mandating full local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, and numerous municipalities in California have declared opposition to their state’s sanctuary policies. California’s sanctuary laws have also been challenged in a lawsuit brought by the United States, which claims that these laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Featuring:
William A. Stock, Partner, Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP
Christopher Hajek, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
Moderator: Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15413928Fri, 03 Aug 2018 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2015, 32-year old Kate Steinle was shot in San Francisco by an Illegal Immigrant. The immigrant was previously deported five times and had seven prior felony convictions. This incident, along with additional stories of criminal behavior by illegal...Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits state and local governments or officials from inhibiting the flow of information regarding immigrants to ICE. Seeking to enforce §1373, President Trump in 2017 issued an executive order conditioning federal grants to states and municipalities upon cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Subsequent legal challenges brought by cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia have successfully blocked the order’s enforcement, citing the Constitution’s requirement that Congress must approve any new conditions on federal funding. State and local governments, however, have also launched their own anti-sanctuary initiatives. Tennessee, for instance, banned sanctuary cities in May of this year, following Texas, whose law mandating full local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, and numerous municipalities in California have declared opposition to their state’s sanctuary policies. California’s sanctuary laws have also been challenged in a lawsuit brought by the United States, which claims that these laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Featuring:
William A. Stock, Partner, Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP
Christopher Hajek, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
Moderator: Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3508criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/persuader-ruleDOL has now issued a new rule that rescinds the controversial Persuader Rule. Please join us for a status report regarding these developments, including a discussion of the new rule and how it may affect DOL’s authority in the future.
Featuring:
Christopher Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15408063Thu, 02 Aug 2018 16:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 24, 2016 the DOL’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) issued the so-called “persuader rule” that would have greatly inhibited the ability of employers to obtain legal advice in responding to union organizing...DOL has now issued a new rule that rescinds the controversial Persuader Rule. Please join us for a status report regarding these developments, including a discussion of the new rule and how it may affect DOL’s authority in the future.
Featuring:
Christopher Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1441corporations,labor & employment law,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/wisconsin-supreme-court-upholds-academicFeaturing:
Mr. Rick Esenberg, Founder, President and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15297087Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyLike most private universities, Marquette University guarantees academic freedom to its faculty. John McAdams, a tenured professor who had been with the university for almost forty years, wrote a blog post about the increasing tendency on the left to...Featuring:
Mr. Rick Esenberg, Founder, President and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2828first amendment,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-establishment-clause-overseasJoin us for a Teleforum discussion featuring Nathan Forrester and David Buckley. Mr. Forrester analyzes these types of legal questions at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Professor Buckley has written about this question and returned last year from the State Department’s Office of Religion in Global Affairs, where the question was frequently considered and sometimes debated. Prof. Justin Walker of Brandeis School of Law will moderate.
Featuring:
David Buckley, Assistant Professor, Paul Weber Endowed Chair in Politics, Science & Religion, University of Louisville
Nathan Forrester, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Moderator: Prof. Justin Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15287657Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow much, if at all, does the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause constrain what the United States can do overseas? In a world where religious groups often participate in the operations and elections of foreign governments, and in a global...Join us for a Teleforum discussion featuring Nathan Forrester and David Buckley. Mr. Forrester analyzes these types of legal questions at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Professor Buckley has written about this question and returned last year from the State Department’s Office of Religion in Global Affairs, where the question was frequently considered and sometimes debated. Prof. Justin Walker of Brandeis School of Law will moderate.
Featuring:
David Buckley, Assistant Professor, Paul Weber Endowed Chair in Politics, Science & Religion, University of Louisville
Nathan Forrester, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Moderator: Prof. Justin Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3468international law & trade,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-gdpr-and-the-future-of-internet-privFeaturing:
Sunny Seon Kang, International Consumer Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Roslyn Layton, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Insititute
Adam Thierer, Senior Reserch Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15282960Wed, 18 Jul 2018 15:00:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyWithin 7 hours of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into effect, Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems and his non-profit None of Your Business (NOYB) lodged four complaints against Google and Facebook, seeking damages of...Featuring:
Sunny Seon Kang, International Consumer Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Roslyn Layton, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Insititute
Adam Thierer, Senior Reserch Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3774regulatory transparency projec,security & privacy,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-trinity-western-univerFeaturing:
Derek B.M. Ross, Executive Director and General Counsel, Christian Legal Fellowship
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15268349Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:00:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyTrinity Western University (“TWU”) is a private institution organized around a specific viewpoint: evangelical Christianity. As part of that conviction, TWU affirms a “conduct covenant” which limits sexual behavior to married...Featuring:
Derek B.M. Ross, Executive Director and General Counsel, Christian Legal Fellowship
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3518civil rights,education policy,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-carpenter-v-unThe district court dismissed this argument and the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision.
On June 22, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and ruled the government's activities violated the fourth ammendment. The government did not obtain a warrant for the search of the cell phone records, and therefore violated standing constitutional law.
Featuring:
Dean A. Mazzone, Deputy Chief, Criminal Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15229629Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Carpenter, arrests made in an armed robbery case occurred because the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to obtain “transactional records” of the cell phones owned by the alleged coconspirators. These records track the date and...The district court dismissed this argument and the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision.
On June 22, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and ruled the government's activities violated the fourth ammendment. The government did not obtain a warrant for the search of the cell phone records, and therefore violated standing constitutional law.
Featuring:
Dean A. Mazzone, Deputy Chief, Criminal Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1448cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-currier-v-virgFeaturing:
John Hill, Deputy Chief, Felony Major Crimes Section, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15228810Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:11:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Currier v. Virginia, Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 5-4 majority, held that where a criminal defendant elects to sever charges into multiple trials, he cannot, after acquittal at the first trial, argue that the Double Jeopardy clause precludes the...Featuring:
John Hill, Deputy Chief, Felony Major Crimes Section, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1760criminal law & procedure,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-jcpoa-withdrawalFeaturing:
David S. Cohen, Partner, WilmerHale
Lester Munson, Principal, Government Affairs, BGR Group
Moderator: Matthew Heiman, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15229515Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:00:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2015, the United States, along with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. The terms of the deal called for Iran to take various steps to ensure...Featuring:
David S. Cohen, Partner, WilmerHale
Lester Munson, Principal, Government Affairs, BGR Group
Moderator: Matthew Heiman, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3584international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-husted-v-a-philip-randoFeaturing:
Mr. Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15229017Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:00:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith more than 10 percent of Americans moving each year, how can states ensure that their voting lists are kept up to date and that ineligible persons are removed? In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Court held that states can look at...Featuring:
Mr. Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2108election law,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/municipality-lawsuit-on-climate-change-aThe ruling is likely to have an impact on similar pending lawsuits and undoubtedly sets precedent regarding whether and how the courts can be accessed to bring climate change-associated liability claims. In its order, the court acknowledges the reality of climate change and its impacts, but it underscored that “This issue is not over science.” Indeed, the opinion focuses on the proper role of the courts in a system of separated powers in the face of a theory of liability that the court called “breathtaking” in scope. The opinion analyzes the proper, limited application of the public nuisance doctrine and cautions that these types of lawsuits may actually “interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus” on how to address climate change. This Teleforum will discuss what it takes to establish a public nuisance claim, the proper role of the courts in deciding hot button policy issues, other government branch prerogatives, imposing retroactive liability, extraterritorial application of law, and the jusiticiability of claims that may impact foreign policy.
Featuring:
Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15228551Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyShould climate change responsibility be assessed in the courts or by the elected policymaking branches? This past week, a federal district court answered that question. Several municipalities in multiple states filed lawsuits against energy...The ruling is likely to have an impact on similar pending lawsuits and undoubtedly sets precedent regarding whether and how the courts can be accessed to bring climate change-associated liability claims. In its order, the court acknowledges the reality of climate change and its impacts, but it underscored that “This issue is not over science.” Indeed, the opinion focuses on the proper role of the courts in a system of separated powers in the face of a theory of liability that the court called “breathtaking” in scope. The opinion analyzes the proper, limited application of the public nuisance doctrine and cautions that these types of lawsuits may actually “interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus” on how to address climate change. This Teleforum will discuss what it takes to establish a public nuisance claim, the proper role of the courts in deciding hot button policy issues, other government branch prerogatives, imposing retroactive liability, extraterritorial application of law, and the jusiticiability of claims that may impact foreign policy.
Featuring:
Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3456environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decisions-lozman-v-riviIn Lozman, the Court vacated the appelate court's ruling and remanded. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court held probable cause did not necessarily defeat a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. Justice Thomas wrote the lone dissent.
In Chavez-Mendez, the Court decided 5-3 that because the lower court judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge's explanation for reducing Chavez-Meza's sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 358(c)(2) was permissible.
Matthew Wilkins joins us to discuss the decisions and their implications
Featuring:
Matthew Wilkins, Law Clerk, United States District Court of the District of Columbia
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15228560Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:00:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Tuesday, June 19th, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, and Chavez-Mendez v. United States. In Lozman, the Court vacated the appelate court's ruling and remanded. In a majority opinion authored by Justice...In Lozman, the Court vacated the appelate court's ruling and remanded. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court held probable cause did not necessarily defeat a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. Justice Thomas wrote the lone dissent.
In Chavez-Mendez, the Court decided 5-3 that because the lower court judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge's explanation for reducing Chavez-Meza's sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 358(c)(2) was permissible.
Matthew Wilkins joins us to discuss the decisions and their implications
Featuring:
Matthew Wilkins, Law Clerk, United States District Court of the District of Columbia
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2248cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-department-of-energy-s-actions-to-saFeaturing:
Hon. Mark W. Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, United States Department of Energy
Stephen Moore, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity
Moderator: Raymond L. Gifford, Partner, Management Committee Member, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15183640Tue, 03 Jul 2018 10:21:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast month, Bloomberg News revealed a leaked memorandum from the Department of Energy purporting to be part of a larger order out of DOE invoking the Federal Power Act and Defense Production Act to “save” economically endangered nuclear...Featuring:
Hon. Mark W. Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, United States Department of Energy
Stephen Moore, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity
Moderator: Raymond L. Gifford, Partner, Management Committee Member, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3339environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-gerrymandering-in-the-sFeaturing:
Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15176790Mon, 02 Jul 2018 16:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Supreme Court's docket included three cases this term on the legal limits of redistricting. All three cases have now been disposed of by the Court. Our expert analyzes the three cases together, and discusses the future of redistricting in...Featuring:
Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3269election law,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-trump-v-hawaii-decidedFeaturing:
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law/ Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Ly, University of Missouri School of Law
Steven Giaier, General Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15176259Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyTrump v. Hawaii is the latest iteration of Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order suspending immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of specific countries. While the original order banned entry of...Featuring:
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law/ Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Ly, University of Missouri School of Law
Steven Giaier, General Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3537first amendment,international & national secur,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-south-dakota-v-wayfair-In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.
The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.
Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15152023Thu, 28 Jun 2018 20:54:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval. Consistent with this doctrine, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require an...In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.
The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.
Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1905federalism,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-nifla-v-becerra-decidedFeaturing:
Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion & Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15152370Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:51:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyNIFLA is a religiously-affiliated pro-life pregnancy clinic that sought to enjoin the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act on constitutional grounds. The Act requires licensed clinics to...Featuring:
Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion & Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2592first amendment,free speech & election law,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ohio-v-american-express-coToday, June 25th, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas was joined by Justices Gorsuch, Kennedy, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts.
Oramel Skinner joins us to discuss the Court’s ruling and its implications.
Featuring:
Oramel Skinner, Chief of Government Accountability & Special Litigation Unit, Arizona Attorney General's Office.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15135866Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:48:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2010, 17 states and the federal government sued three major credit card companies, American Express, Visa, and MasterCard, for unreasonably restraining trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The Petitioners argued the credit card companies had used...Today, June 25th, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas was joined by Justices Gorsuch, Kennedy, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts.
Oramel Skinner joins us to discuss the Court’s ruling and its implications.
Featuring:
Oramel Skinner, Chief of Government Accountability & Special Litigation Unit, Arizona Attorney General's Office.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1449cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-lucia-v-sec-decidedIn a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.
Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15128288Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review,...In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.
Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3467administrative law & regulatio,federalism,financial servicescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/balancing-executive-and-legislative-branThis teleforum offers a balanced representation of the competing interests. Morton Rosenberg, retired Congressional Research Service Senior Legal Analyst and author of When Congress Comes Calling: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry, explains the history of and authority for Congressional demands for information from Executive Branch agencies. Washington attorney William Moschella, a former Congressional Staff Counsel who later became President George W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs - the office responsible for DOJ’s responses to Congressional inquiries - offers insight into the considerations accompanying such responses.
Featuring:
William Moschella, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Morton Rosenberg, Fellow, The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight
Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15125809Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:00:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyOne might expect that by now the Legislative and Executive Branches would have worked out some understood and accepted protocols for balancing the interests of the Legislative Branch in satisfying its oversight obligations, and of the Executive Branch...This teleforum offers a balanced representation of the competing interests. Morton Rosenberg, retired Congressional Research Service Senior Legal Analyst and author of When Congress Comes Calling: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry, explains the history of and authority for Congressional demands for information from Executive Branch agencies. Washington attorney William Moschella, a former Congressional Staff Counsel who later became President George W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs - the office responsible for DOJ’s responses to Congressional inquiries - offers insight into the considerations accompanying such responses.
Featuring:
William Moschella, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Morton Rosenberg, Fellow, The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight
Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3807administrative law & regulatio,article i initiativecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-it-a-taking-when-the-government-floodFeaturing:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15110667Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, the US Army Corps of Engineers deliberately flooded thousands of homes and businesses because they believed it was necessary in order to prevent even worse flooding elsewhere. Many of the affected property owners...Featuring:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3955cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-labmd-inc-v-federal-traFeaturing:
Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute
Scott Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15086782Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:52:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe 11th Circuit’s decision in LabMD v. FTC comes just as the new FTC Chairman and Commission have been sworn in. The long-awaited decision arises in a case which raised fundamental questions regarding the FTC’s data breach enforcement...Featuring:
Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute
Scott Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3557administrative law & regulatio,regulatory transparency projec,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/executive-overreach-at-the-epa-the-pebblThe Clean Water Act provides that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) is in charge of the Section 404 permit application process, including receiving input from the public as well as state and local governments, preparing a comprehensive environmental impact statement, and deciding whether to grant a permit application. By contrast, the Clean Water Act provides EPA with narrow authority to veto a Corps-issued permit at the end of the application process. In 2014, however, EPA initiated a veto of the Pebble Mine, a potential copper and gold mine on state-owned lands in southwest Alaska, before the developer submitted a permit application, much less completed the Corps’ permit application process. EPA did so over the express wishes of the State of Alaska. Internal EPA documents even suggest that it believed that the preemptive veto aimed at Pebble could be used as a model for future zoning and watershed planning at the federal level.
This teleforum provides an overview of certain current Clean Water Act developments and jurisprudence, as well as a discussion of the steps EPA has taken to veto the Pebble Mine, a proposed veto that remains pending. In particular, the teleforum focuses on the effects that EPA’s expansive authority has on state and local governments’ ability to manage public lands.
Featuring:
Myron Ebell, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Robert Perciasepe, President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Tom Collier, CEO, Pebble Partnership
Moderator: Shannen W. Coffin, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15057036Fri, 15 Jun 2018 16:11:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyPerhaps in no area was President Obama’s expansive approach to executive authority more apparent than in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) interpretation of the Clean Water Act. Although both critics and supporters...The Clean Water Act provides that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) is in charge of the Section 404 permit application process, including receiving input from the public as well as state and local governments, preparing a comprehensive environmental impact statement, and deciding whether to grant a permit application. By contrast, the Clean Water Act provides EPA with narrow authority to veto a Corps-issued permit at the end of the application process. In 2014, however, EPA initiated a veto of the Pebble Mine, a potential copper and gold mine on state-owned lands in southwest Alaska, before the developer submitted a permit application, much less completed the Corps’ permit application process. EPA did so over the express wishes of the State of Alaska. Internal EPA documents even suggest that it believed that the preemptive veto aimed at Pebble could be used as a model for future zoning and watershed planning at the federal level.
This teleforum provides an overview of certain current Clean Water Act developments and jurisprudence, as well as a discussion of the steps EPA has taken to veto the Pebble Mine, a proposed veto that remains pending. In particular, the teleforum focuses on the effects that EPA’s expansive authority has on state and local governments’ ability to manage public lands.
Featuring:
Myron Ebell, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Robert Perciasepe, President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Tom Collier, CEO, Pebble Partnership
Moderator: Shannen W. Coffin, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3522environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-minnesota-voteFeaturing:
Elizabeth Slattery, Legal Fellow and Appellate Advocacy Program Manager, Edwin Meese, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15056873Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:44:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyMost states have laws that prohibit electioneering within polling places on election day, and the Supreme Court has upheld buffer zones that extend this prohibition to areas immediately surrounding polling places. But Minnesota law went beyond...Featuring:
Elizabeth Slattery, Legal Fellow and Appellate Advocacy Program Manager, Edwin Meese, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1139election law,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-lives-of-the-constitutionMr. Tartakovsky brings to life their struggles over our supreme law from its origins in revolutionary America to the era of Obama and Trump. Sweeping from settings as diverse as Gold Rush California to the halls of Congress, and crowded with a vivid Dickensian cast, The book shows how America’s unique constitutional culture grapples with questions like democracy, racial and sexual equality, free speech, economic liberty, and the role of government.
From the 1787 Philadelphia Convention to the clash over gay marriage, this is an interesting grand tour through two centuries of constitutional history as never told before.
Join our Teleforum call with author Joseph Tartakovsky and Ilya Shapirio discussing the book.
Featuring:
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Mr. Joseph Tartakovsky, James Wilson Fellow in Constitutional Law, Claremont Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15048910Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:00:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Lives of the Constitution: Ten Exceptional Minds that Shaped America’s Supreme Law is a blend of biography and history, Joseph Tartakovsky tells the story of our Constitution through the eyes of ten extraordinary individuals―some renowned,...Mr. Tartakovsky brings to life their struggles over our supreme law from its origins in revolutionary America to the era of Obama and Trump. Sweeping from settings as diverse as Gold Rush California to the halls of Congress, and crowded with a vivid Dickensian cast, The book shows how America’s unique constitutional culture grapples with questions like democracy, racial and sexual equality, free speech, economic liberty, and the role of government.
From the 1787 Philadelphia Convention to the clash over gay marriage, this is an interesting grand tour through two centuries of constitutional history as never told before.
Join our Teleforum call with author Joseph Tartakovsky and Ilya Shapirio discussing the book.
Featuring:
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Mr. Joseph Tartakovsky, James Wilson Fellow in Constitutional Law, Claremont Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3547constitution,founding era & historycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-affh-rider
This teleforum will examine the workings and ambitions of AFFH, will clear up confusion about the current state of the rule, will challenge the legal history of the rule promulgated by its supporters, and will sketch out the transformative potential of the rule under a future administration.

Featuring:

Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15048174Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:00:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlthough the Obama administration’s controversial Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule has not yet been enforced in the manner originally envisioned, it has the potential to be as transformative as the Affordable Care Act....
This teleforum will examine the workings and ambitions of AFFH, will clear up confusion about the current state of the rule, will challenge the legal history of the rule promulgated by its supporters, and will sketch out the transformative potential of the rule under a future administration.

Featuring:

Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3537cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-teleforum-collins-v-virAt trial, the owner tried to suppress the motorcycle as evidence because the police officers had not obtained a warrant before searching under the tarp. Under the Fourth Amendment automobile exception, is a police officer permitted to enter private property without a warrant in order to search a vehicle near the house? On May 29th, 2018, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 that such a search was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment.
Greg Brower will join us to discuss the decision and its implications.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/15042280Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:56:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Collins v. Virginia, police searched a motorcycle which was partially hidden under a tarp outside a private residence. The police believed the motorcycle was the same one they had seen earlier committing traffic violations, and had been reported...At trial, the owner tried to suppress the motorcycle as evidence because the police officers had not obtained a warrant before searching under the tarp. Under the Fourth Amendment automobile exception, is a police officer permitted to enter private property without a warrant in order to search a vehicle near the house? On May 29th, 2018, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 that such a search was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment.
Greg Brower will join us to discuss the decision and its implications.]]>1641civil rights,constitution,criminal law & procedure,due processcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-masterpiece-cakeshop-v-_1The facts of the case are as follows: two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.
The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law and Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society, will join us to discuss this important decision.
Featuring:
Prof. Dale A. Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law; Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law
Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14984633Wed, 06 Jun 2018 15:35:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC, one of the most highly publicized of the term, was decided 7-2 in favor of the petitioner. The facts of the case are as follows: two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a...The facts of the case are as follows: two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.
The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law and Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society, will join us to discuss this important decision.
Featuring:
Prof. Dale A. Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law; Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law
Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>4501first amendment,free speech & election law,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supply-chain-the-role-of-chinese-equipmeFeaturing:
Nova Daly, Senior Public Policy Advisor, Wiley Rein LLP
Sarah Geffroy, Director, Global Public Policy, AT&T; Senior Fellow, George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security
Clete Johnson, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14979200Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:00:14 +0000The Federalist Society“Supply chain security” has been a hot topic in Congress and federal agencies in recent months. There is concern among policymakers that the use of Chinese telecommunications equipment in U.S. networks and connected devices could pose...Featuring:
Nova Daly, Senior Public Policy Advisor, Wiley Rein LLP
Sarah Geffroy, Director, Global Public Policy, AT&T; Senior Fellow, George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security
Clete Johnson, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3771cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/speak-freely-why-universities-must-defenhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/14966255Mon, 04 Jun 2018 09:00:54 +0000The Federalist Society3688free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/white-house-faith-and-opportunity-initia Featuring:
Melissa Rogers, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder & Senior Director, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14948647Fri, 01 Jun 2018 11:36:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 3, 2018, President Trump signed an executive order establishing a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative and amending an existing executive order setting forth fundamental principles and policymaking criteria regarding partnerships the... Featuring:
Melissa Rogers, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder & Senior Director, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3670federalism & separation of pow,foreign policy,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-epic-systems-corp-v-lew Featuring:
Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14889523Fri, 25 May 2018 17:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 21, the Supreme Court decided Epic Systems v. Lewis; a consolidated case with Ernst & Young, LLP, et al. v. Morris, et al. and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al. affirming the enforceability of Class Action Waivers contained within... Featuring:
Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2250labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/special-prosecutors-in-the-u-s_1Featuring:
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14888815Fri, 25 May 2018 15:54:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 13, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Steve Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society and Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law, discussing the legality of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into...Featuring:
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3784criminal law & procedure,due process,federalism,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/preview-frank-v-gaos_1Featuring:
Theodore H. Frank, Director of Litigation, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14879936Thu, 24 May 2018 21:27:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 30, the Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos, an appeal of a Ninth Circuit decision affirming a District Court cy pres class action settlement. The petitioner claims that because the class action members received no direct relief, the...Featuring:
Theodore H. Frank, Director of Litigation, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1176litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-sas-institute-inc-v-ianWriting for the majority, Justice Gorsuch found that “[i]n this context, as in so many others, any means every.” If Congress wanted to allow the Patent Office to select certain claims for inter partes review, it could have done so. Inter partes review was created as part of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, creating a litigation-like proceeding before the Patent Office where a petitioner can ask the Patent Office to reexamine one or more issued patent claims. If the Patent Office finds a question of patentability as to at least one challenged patent claim, it institutes inter partes review. Until now, the Patent Office interpreted the statute as allowing it to review some claims but decline to review others. A decision not to review claims is not judicially appealable, but a final decision on patentability in an IPR proceeding estops the petitioner from challenging validity in later district court litigation. Under the new regime, the Patent Office will be forced to review all challenged patent claims and issue a final written decision. This will change strategies for patent litigations. This will also create more work for the Patent Office, a point Justice Breyer emphasized in his dissent, arguing for “respect [for the] leeway which Congress intended the agencies to have.”
This teleforum discusses both the statutory interpretation and Chevron deference issues raised by this case, as well as the practical implications for inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Office.
Featuring:
Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLC
Mr. Brian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14879769Thu, 24 May 2018 21:11:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen Congress directs the Patent Office to resolve “any” patent claims a petitioner challenges, must the Patent Office resolve every challenged claim or does the Director have the discretion to only resolve some of the claims? And if the...Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch found that “[i]n this context, as in so many others, any means every.” If Congress wanted to allow the Patent Office to select certain claims for inter partes review, it could have done so. Inter partes review was created as part of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, creating a litigation-like proceeding before the Patent Office where a petitioner can ask the Patent Office to reexamine one or more issued patent claims. If the Patent Office finds a question of patentability as to at least one challenged patent claim, it institutes inter partes review. Until now, the Patent Office interpreted the statute as allowing it to review some claims but decline to review others. A decision not to review claims is not judicially appealable, but a final decision on patentability in an IPR proceeding estops the petitioner from challenging validity in later district court litigation. Under the new regime, the Patent Office will be forced to review all challenged patent claims and issue a final written decision. This will change strategies for patent litigations. This will also create more work for the Patent Office, a point Justice Breyer emphasized in his dissent, arguing for “respect [for the] leeway which Congress intended the agencies to have.”
This teleforum discusses both the statutory interpretation and Chevron deference issues raised by this case, as well as the practical implications for inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Office.
Featuring:
Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLC
Mr. Brian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3668intellectual property,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-murphy-v-national-colleThe 6-3 decision, with Justice Alito writing for the majority, and its implications are discussed by our expert, Mr. Elbert Lin.
Featuring:
Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14880305Thu, 24 May 2018 18:00:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decision came down in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477,...The 6-3 decision, with Justice Alito writing for the majority, and its implications are discussed by our expert, Mr. Elbert Lin.
Featuring:
Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2561federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/aldf-v-wasden-the-ninth-circuit-and-idahIn ALDF v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2018), the panel considered constitutional objections to a new Idaho statute that makes it a crime to engage in “interference with agricultural production.” A number of states with substantial agribusiness operations have enacted or considered enacting similar statutes, which some opponents call “ag-gag” laws.
The Idaho law was passed in 2014, after an animal rights group posted a “disturbing,” “secretly-filmed exposé of the operation of an Idaho dairy farm” on the Internet. Animal rights organizations filed suit in federal district court, challenging several provisions of the statute. After the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the Idaho attorney general appealed.
As relevant here, the Idaho statute defines the crime of “interference with agricultural production” to include (and thus to prohibit) four categories of knowing conduct:
(1) knowingly making misrepresentations to enter an “agricultural production facility”;
(2) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain records of an agricultural production facility;
(3) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain employment with an agricultural production facility, coupled with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the owners, the facility, and other persons and things; and
(4) knowingly entering an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public and making audio or video recordings of the facility’s operations without the owner’s consent and without any judicial or statutory authorization.
The panel unanimously upheld the second and third prohibitions, and unanimously struck down the fourth prohibition. But the panel divided 2-1 over whether the first prohibition (on knowingly making a misrepresentation to enter an agricultural production facility) is constitutional. The majority (Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by Judge Richard C. Tallman) held that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. Judge Carlos T. Bea, who dissented in part and concurred in part, would have upheld the prohibition. Among other things, he disagreed with the majority’s reading of United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S 709 (2012), an important recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the federal Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about the receipt of military decorations or medals.
Professor Eugene Volokh will discuss and evaluate the separate opinions in the case and their analyses of the statutory provisions at issue, noting possible implications for litigators as well as for legislators who may be considering similar legislative proposals.
Featuring:
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14855478Tue, 22 May 2018 11:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyEarly this year, a Ninth Circuit panel issued a split decision in an Idaho case that pits interests protected by the First Amendment against property rights and privacy interests. More specifically, as the panel majority noted, the appeal...In ALDF v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2018), the panel considered constitutional objections to a new Idaho statute that makes it a crime to engage in “interference with agricultural production.” A number of states with substantial agribusiness operations have enacted or considered enacting similar statutes, which some opponents call “ag-gag” laws.
The Idaho law was passed in 2014, after an animal rights group posted a “disturbing,” “secretly-filmed exposé of the operation of an Idaho dairy farm” on the Internet. Animal rights organizations filed suit in federal district court, challenging several provisions of the statute. After the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the Idaho attorney general appealed.
As relevant here, the Idaho statute defines the crime of “interference with agricultural production” to include (and thus to prohibit) four categories of knowing conduct:
(1) knowingly making misrepresentations to enter an “agricultural production facility”;
(2) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain records of an agricultural production facility;
(3) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain employment with an agricultural production facility, coupled with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the owners, the facility, and other persons and things; and
(4) knowingly entering an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public and making audio or video recordings of the facility’s operations without the owner’s consent and without any judicial or statutory authorization.
The panel unanimously upheld the second and third prohibitions, and unanimously struck down the fourth prohibition. But the panel divided 2-1 over whether the first prohibition (on knowingly making a misrepresentation to enter an agricultural production facility) is constitutional. The majority (Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by Judge Richard C. Tallman) held that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. Judge Carlos T. Bea, who dissented in part and concurred in part, would have upheld the prohibition. Among other things, he disagreed with the majority’s reading of United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S 709 (2012), an important recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the federal Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about the receipt of military decorations or medals.
Professor Eugene Volokh will discuss and evaluate the separate opinions in the case and their analyses of the statutory provisions at issue, noting possible implications for litigators as well as for legislators who may be considering similar legislative proposals.
Featuring:
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2291first amendment,property lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-case-for-political-appointment-of-ju
Featuring:
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Prof. Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14857861Mon, 21 May 2018 13:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us in a discussion with our experts, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick and Professor Stephen Ware, as we review The Case for Political Appointment of Judges, a new white paper from Professor Fitzpatrick which argues that political appointment is the...
Featuring:
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Prof. Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law]]>3298cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-jesner-v-arab-bank-deciThe petitioners in this case were surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claimed that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they could sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.
Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto join us to discuss the decision.
Featuring:
Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law
Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14822144Thu, 17 May 2018 16:00:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 24, Jesner v. Arab Bank was decided 5-4 in favor of the respondent. The petitioners in this case were surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West...The petitioners in this case were surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claimed that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they could sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.
Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto join us to discuss the decision.
Featuring:
Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law
Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2877international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-mccoy-v-louisiThe Supreme Court has just issued a decision holding, 6-3, that it was unconstitutional for McCoy’s lawyer to admit guilt to the jury over McCoy’s express objection. The Court noted that whether to admit guilt is not a strategic question about how to achieve a client’s objectives, but a fundamental question about what a client’s objectives actually are. Therefore, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that the defendant, not his lawyer, has the final say on this question, and that McCoy must receive a new trial in which his attorney will defend his professed innocence and put the state to its burden of proof.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14818982Thu, 17 May 2018 15:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyRobert McCoy was charged with the murder of three of his family members in Bossier City, Louisiana. The state brought capital charges against him, but McCoy maintained his innocence – claiming he was not even in the state at the time of the...The Supreme Court has just issued a decision holding, 6-3, that it was unconstitutional for McCoy’s lawyer to admit guilt to the jury over McCoy’s express objection. The Court noted that whether to admit guilt is not a strategic question about how to achieve a client’s objectives, but a fundamental question about what a client’s objectives actually are. Therefore, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that the defendant, not his lawyer, has the final say on this question, and that McCoy must receive a new trial in which his attorney will defend his professed innocence and put the state to its burden of proof.]]>1862criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/in-memoriam-ron-rotundaFeaturing:

Prof. James W. Ely Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus; Professor of History Emeritus; Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law School
Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Law Emeritus, Professor of Business Law Emeritus, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: John J. Park, Jr., Chair, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14793283Mon, 14 May 2018 17:28:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this Teleforum, Prof. Ely of Vanderbilt Law, Prof. Presser of Northwestern, and our Professional Responsibilities Practice Group Chair Jack Park will join us to discuss Prof. Rotunda’s newest book, John Marshall and the Cases that United the...Featuring:

Prof. James W. Ely Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus; Professor of History Emeritus; Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law School
Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Law Emeritus, Professor of Business Law Emeritus, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: John J. Park, Jr., Chair, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2899founding era & historycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-clean-water-act-s-404-f-exemptionsThe Clean Water Act also presents important questions of operational scope: its operative terms prohibit discharges of pollutants from point sources to navigable waters without a federal permit. However, section 404(f) of the Act lists several categories of actions which are neither prohibited nor require permits from the Army Corps, including normal farming, ranching and forestry practices, maintenance of existing structures, and construction and maintenance of stock ponds and irrigation ditches, along with several others. While the text of the statute indicates broad exemptions for these categories of activities, agency regulations and practice significantly narrow them.
This teleforum examines three recent Clean Water Act enforcement actions involving the scope of the 404(f) exemptions for farming, stock ponds, and maintenance of rip rap bank protection structures.
Featuring:
Peter Prows, Attorney, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel
Tyler Welti, Attorney, Venable, LLP
Jonathan Wood, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14756825Thu, 10 May 2018 15:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Clean Water Act’s geographic scope has demanded much attention recently, with high profile efforts by EPA to rewrite the prior administration’s regulations defining “navigable waters” and the Supreme Court issuing a...The Clean Water Act also presents important questions of operational scope: its operative terms prohibit discharges of pollutants from point sources to navigable waters without a federal permit. However, section 404(f) of the Act lists several categories of actions which are neither prohibited nor require permits from the Army Corps, including normal farming, ranching and forestry practices, maintenance of existing structures, and construction and maintenance of stock ponds and irrigation ditches, along with several others. While the text of the statute indicates broad exemptions for these categories of activities, agency regulations and practice significantly narrow them.
This teleforum examines three recent Clean Water Act enforcement actions involving the scope of the 404(f) exemptions for farming, stock ponds, and maintenance of rip rap bank protection structures.
Featuring:
Peter Prows, Attorney, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel
Tyler Welti, Attorney, Venable, LLP
Jonathan Wood, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3556administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/incentivizing-early-fixes-the-department
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14754693Thu, 10 May 2018 10:00:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 6, 2018, the U.S Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division announced its new Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program. A six-month pilot program, PAID allows employers to proactively address potential wage and hour...
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1603administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment law,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/eu-incitement-to-hate-policies-targets-cFeaturing:
Lucinda Creighton, CEO, Vulcan Consulting Ltd
Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International
Soeren Kern, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute
Moderator: Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14743759Wed, 09 May 2018 10:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs member states of the European Union have adopted laws and programs to curtail inflammatory and hateful expression, American observers have considered the efficacy of these measures. European judicial rulings now address the balancing of rights at...Featuring:
Lucinda Creighton, CEO, Vulcan Consulting Ltd
Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International
Soeren Kern, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute
Moderator: Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3776civil rights,federalism,free speech & election law,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/deference-doctrines-and-the-clean-water-This teleforum provides an overview of current thinking about deference doctrines on the Supreme Court, the role of deference in the enforcement of the Clean Water Act, and the implications of abandoning judicial deference to agencies for the implementation of the Act.
Featuring:
Professor Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Timothy Bishop, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14734042Tue, 08 May 2018 13:44:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecently, Justices of the Supreme Court have called the Court’s deference jurisprudence into significant question. Then Judge Gorsuch, separately concurring in his own panel decision for the Tenth Circuit in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch,...This teleforum provides an overview of current thinking about deference doctrines on the Supreme Court, the role of deference in the enforcement of the Clean Water Act, and the implications of abandoning judicial deference to agencies for the implementation of the Act.
Featuring:
Professor Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Timothy Bishop, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3657administrative law & regulatio,article i initiative,environmental & energy law,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-struggle-to-rein-in-shareholder-actiFeaturing:
Jason Levine, Litigation Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP
Lawrence Elbaum, Co-head of Shareholder Activism Practice, Vinson & Elkins LLP
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14736489Tue, 08 May 2018 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor over a decade, shareholder activism has been on the rise, affecting an increasing number of publicly-traded companies. Essentially a re-brand of the 1980s-era “corporate raiders,” today’s activists are primarily institutional...Featuring:
Jason Levine, Litigation Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP
Lawrence Elbaum, Co-head of Shareholder Activism Practice, Vinson & Elkins LLP
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3268corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/reforming-administrative-adjudicationThis teleforum will address numerous issues surrounding the proposed reform, including the practicality of adding so many Article III judges, the constitutional problems with the current system of formal agency adjudication, and the benefits of subject matter expertise.
Featuring:
Professor Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
Moderator: Professor Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14685812Wed, 02 May 2018 15:52:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyAgencies formally adjudicate a massive number of federal cases with administrative law judges. This delegation of judicial power is justified by the alleged lack of time and expertise of federal courts as compared to agencies. In this essay, Professor...This teleforum will address numerous issues surrounding the proposed reform, including the practicality of adding so many Article III judges, the constitutional problems with the current system of formal agency adjudication, and the benefits of subject matter expertise.
Featuring:
Professor Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
Moderator: Professor Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3625administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/51-imperfect-solutions-by-judge-jeffrey-Featuring:
Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14677514Tue, 01 May 2018 18:36:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen we think of constitutional law, we invariably think of the United States Supreme Court and the federal court system. Yet much of our constitutional law is not made at the federal level. In 51 Imperfect Solutions, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge...Featuring:
Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3829founding era & historycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-animal-science-productsHebei appealed, and the circuit court reversed the district court's denial to dismiss. The circuit court reasoned that the district court had erred in not deferring to the Chinese government's interpretations of its laws, as the Chinese government had appeared in court to defend Hebei's actions.
John Shu will join us to discuss his perceptions of the oral argument in this important case.
Featuring:
John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14669142Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:41:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyAnimal Science Products, a U.S. company, sued Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., a Chinese company, for violating U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating prices and artificially decreasing supply. Hebei moved to dismiss the case, stating that they were...Hebei appealed, and the circuit court reversed the district court's denial to dismiss. The circuit court reasoned that the district court had erred in not deferring to the Chinese government's interpretations of its laws, as the Chinese government had appeared in court to defend Hebei's actions.
John Shu will join us to discuss his perceptions of the oral argument in this important case.
Featuring:
John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2617federal courts,federalism,international law & tradecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oil-states-energy-serviFeaturing:
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Brian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14640790Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:00:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnder what circumstances may patents be revoked or modified? What process is due? The questions animating Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group have been answered. The Supreme Court Opinion that came down today 7-2 affirms the...Featuring:
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Brian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3760administrative law & regulatio,intellectual property,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-trump-v-hawaiiFeaturing:
Steven Giaier, General Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14640241Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:23:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, the latest iteration of Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order suspending immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of specific...Featuring:
Steven Giaier, General Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3196federalism,international & national secur,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-lucia-v-secKevin Muhlendorf of Wiley Rein and Professor Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law join us to give their impressions of the oral argument of this important case.
Featuring:
Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Kevin B. Muhlendorf, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14637959Wed, 25 Apr 2018 23:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review,...Kevin Muhlendorf of Wiley Rein and Professor Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law join us to give their impressions of the oral argument of this important case.
Featuring:
Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Kevin B. Muhlendorf, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2977administrative law & regulatio,federalism,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/criminal-justice-reform-discussion
Featuring:

Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Utah, and former U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Utah
Brandon L. Garrett, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law and White Burkett Miller Professor of Law and Public Affairs, University of Virginia
Moderator: Erik Luna, Amelia D. Lewis Professor of Constitutional & Criminal Law, Arizona State University, and Director of the Academy for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14611520Mon, 23 Apr 2018 17:00:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyCriminal justice reform has been a hot political topic for several years now, bringing together otherwise strange bedfellows in a common cause to address issues such as over-criminalization and mass incarceration. Although some academics have...
Featuring:

Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Utah, and former U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Utah
Brandon L. Garrett, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law and White Burkett Miller Professor of Law and Public Affairs, University of Virginia
Moderator: Erik Luna, Amelia D. Lewis Professor of Constitutional & Criminal Law, Arizona State University, and Director of the Academy for Justice


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3438criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/antitrust-enforcement-by-state-attorney-Featuring:
Vic Domen, Senior Antitrust Counsel, Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, Nashville, TN (Chair, National Association of Attorneys General Multistate Antitrust Task Force)
Jennifer Thomson, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Antitrust Section, Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Harrisburg, PA
Jeffrey Oliver, Senior Associate, Baker Botts L.L.P., Washington, DC
Ian Conner, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Washington DC
Moderator: Adam Biegel, Co-chair, Antitrust Team, and Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, DC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14588781Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:04:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyState Attorneys General often investigate antitrust violations – ranging from price fixing to anticompetitive mergers – in conjunction with the federal antitrust enforcement agencies (the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade...Featuring:
Vic Domen, Senior Antitrust Counsel, Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, Nashville, TN (Chair, National Association of Attorneys General Multistate Antitrust Task Force)
Jennifer Thomson, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Antitrust Section, Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Harrisburg, PA
Jeffrey Oliver, Senior Associate, Baker Botts L.L.P., Washington, DC
Ian Conner, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Washington DC
Moderator: Adam Biegel, Co-chair, Antitrust Team, and Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, DC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3763corporations,criminal law & procedure,federalism,financial services & e-commerc,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-role-of-congressional-intelligence-cFeaturing:
Michael Bahar, Former Minority Staff Director, General Counsel, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Michael Geffroy, Former General Counsel for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Matthew R. A. Heiman, Vice President, Corporate Secretary & Associate General Counsel, Johnson Controls
Heather Molino, Former Minority Staff Director, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14579395Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:00:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyFormer Minority Staff Director and General Counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Michael Bahar, Former General Counsel Michael Geffroy of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Former Minority Staff Director...Featuring:
Michael Bahar, Former Minority Staff Director, General Counsel, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Michael Geffroy, Former General Counsel for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Matthew R. A. Heiman, Vice President, Corporate Secretary & Associate General Counsel, Johnson Controls
Heather Molino, Former Minority Staff Director, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3666administrative law & regulatio,article i initiative,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/preview-trump-v-hawaiiFeaturing:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14570441Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, the latest iteration of Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order suspending immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of specific...Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3568federalism,international & national secur,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/tenth-anniversary-of-hellerIn this Telefoum, Professors Nelson Lund and Darrell Miller will debate the original meaning of the Second Amendment, whether Heller was correctly decided, whether lower courts are faithfully applying Heller, and how Heller might apply to future legislation regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Featuring:
Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Darrel Miller, Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Dr. Robert Leider, Associate, Arnold & Porter DC, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University School of Law
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14569738Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:00:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis year marks the tenth anniversary of Heller v. District of Columbia. Before Heller, courts had split on whether the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms or if that right was limited only to those citizens...In this Telefoum, Professors Nelson Lund and Darrell Miller will debate the original meaning of the Second Amendment, whether Heller was correctly decided, whether lower courts are faithfully applying Heller, and how Heller might apply to future legislation regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Featuring:
Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Darrel Miller, Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Dr. Robert Leider, Associate, Arnold & Porter DC, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University School of Law
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3839cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/citizenship-and-the-censusFeaturing:

Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14533308Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 26, the Commerce Department announced that the 2020 census will include a question about U.S. citizenship. The Commerce Department was acting in response to a December request from the Justice Department to include the question for the stated...Featuring:

Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3418administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/beneficial-ownershipFeaturing:
David R. Burton, Senior Fellow in Economic Policy, Roe institute for Economic Policy Studies, Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, The Heritage Foundation
Clay R. Fuller, AEI Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14504536Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:00:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyHearings have been held recently in both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on so-called “beneficial ownership” legislation to fight terrorism and money laundering by compelling both newly formed and already existing...Featuring:
David R. Burton, Senior Fellow in Economic Policy, Roe institute for Economic Policy Studies, Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, The Heritage Foundation
Clay R. Fuller, AEI Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3457administrative law & regulatio,corporations,federalism,financial services & e-commerc,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-end-of-partisan-redistricting-beniseFeaturing:
Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General, Wisconsin Department of Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14504444Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:00:17 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard Benisek v. Lamone, the second partisan gerrymandering case of the Term. Under review in Benisek is the Maryland redistricting map, drawn to favor Democrats running for election. The first partisan...Featuring:
Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General, Wisconsin Department of Justice

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2965election law,federalismcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/who-is-paying-for-that-lawsuitFeaturing:
Travis Lenkner, Senior Advisor, Burford Capital
John Beisner, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14497294Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe advisory committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is considering proposed amendments to Rule 26 that would require disclosure of litigation financing arrangements. Specifically, the proposal would require disclosure of any agreement...Featuring:
Travis Lenkner, Senior Advisor, Burford Capital
John Beisner, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>4312litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/qualcomm-litigation-updateFeaturing:

Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14425843Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 5, the committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) raised objection to the hostile take over a bid of Qualcomm by Broadcom. Shortly there after, the administration announced that it was blocking the deal altogether. Join us...Featuring:

Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3386cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/sokolow-et-al-v-palestinian-liberation-oFeaturing:
David Rivkin, Partner, BakerHostetler

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14425304Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecently, in a case called Sokolow, et al v. Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Solicitor General's Office filed a brief in opposition to the Supreme Court cert petition being sought by the petitioners. The petitioners brought a lawsuit...Featuring:
David Rivkin, Partner, BakerHostetler

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2171criminal law & procedure,international & national secur,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-china-agritech-v-reshIn 2011, company shareholders alleged fraudulent business practices and sued China Agritech in two successive putative class actions in 2011 and 2012. The plaintiffs alleged various securities law violations against the company and several individual defendants. Class certification was denied in both cases.
A third putative class action suit was brought by shareholder Michael Resh in 2014, alleging securities law violations arising from the same facts and circumstances as the first two cases. China Agritech moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it had been filed after the two year limitations period. Resh and the additional plaintiffs argue that under the precedent set in American Pipe & Construction v. Utah, the limitations period had been tolled on their claims during the pendency of the two prior class actions. The District Court rejected this contention, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court will now hear arguments on whether the American Pipe tolling rule allows a previously unnamed plaintiff to bring a subsequent class action after the applicable limitations period has passed.
Christopher C. Murray of Ogletree Deakins will join us to give his impressions of the oral argument.
Featuring:
Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14415769Thu, 29 Mar 2018 10:00:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 26, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, a case which will further clarify statutes of limitation in class actions. In 2011, company shareholders alleged fraudulent business practices and sued China Agritech...In 2011, company shareholders alleged fraudulent business practices and sued China Agritech in two successive putative class actions in 2011 and 2012. The plaintiffs alleged various securities law violations against the company and several individual defendants. Class certification was denied in both cases.
A third putative class action suit was brought by shareholder Michael Resh in 2014, alleging securities law violations arising from the same facts and circumstances as the first two cases. China Agritech moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it had been filed after the two year limitations period. Resh and the additional plaintiffs argue that under the precedent set in American Pipe & Construction v. Utah, the limitations period had been tolled on their claims during the pendency of the two prior class actions. The District Court rejected this contention, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court will now hear arguments on whether the American Pipe tolling rule allows a previously unnamed plaintiff to bring a subsequent class action after the applicable limitations period has passed.
Christopher C. Murray of Ogletree Deakins will join us to give his impressions of the oral argument.
Featuring:
Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1866labor & employment law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-justice-departments-challenge-of-theIs this merger unlawful and would consumers be worse off? Jim Tierney will join us to give us his impressions of the pleadings for this case.
Featuring:
James Tierney, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14386990Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 21, the U.S. District Court for D.C. will hear arguments in U.S. v. AT&T Inc. et al. AT&T plans to acquire Time Warner to combine its nationwide mobile and satellite distribution networks with one of the biggest producers of content...Is this merger unlawful and would consumers be worse off? Jim Tierney will join us to give us his impressions of the pleadings for this case.
Featuring:
James Tierney, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP



Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2960cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/20-state-lawsuit-challenging-obamacares-Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General for the State of Wisconsin
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14386482Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecently, 20 States, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas and Attorney General Brad Schimel of Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare based upon Chief Justice John Robert's reasoning in NFIB. The Chief...Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General for the State of Wisconsin
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3589federalism,healthcare,litigation,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/administrator-pruitt-s-first-year-at-epaOne year into Pruitt’s tenure as Administrator, his Agency claims that it is “focusing on cleaning up contaminated lands, improving air quality, and rebuilding America’s water infrastructure”—all while restoring cooperative federalism and rescinding costly regulations. Panelists Jeff Holmstead and John Walke and Moderator Adam Gustafson will join us to review Administrator Pruitt’s first year at EPA, evaluating the Agency’s priorities and its progress and discussing EPA’s evolving role.
Featuring:
Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
John Walke, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Project, Climate & Clean Air Program
Moderator: Adam Gustafson, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14367554Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:02:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen President Trump nominated Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, environmentalists warned that Pruitt would "make America gasp again." After all, as Attorney General of Oklahoma, Pruitt had sued EPA several times...One year into Pruitt’s tenure as Administrator, his Agency claims that it is “focusing on cleaning up contaminated lands, improving air quality, and rebuilding America’s water infrastructure”—all while restoring cooperative federalism and rescinding costly regulations. Panelists Jeff Holmstead and John Walke and Moderator Adam Gustafson will join us to review Administrator Pruitt’s first year at EPA, evaluating the Agency’s priorities and its progress and discussing EPA’s evolving role.
Featuring:
Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
John Walke, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Project, Climate & Clean Air Program
Moderator: Adam Gustafson, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3257administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-national-institute-of-fProf. Michael Moreland of Villanova will join us to give his impressions of the oral argument.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion & Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14367927Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 20, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. NIFLA is a religiously-affiliated pro-life pregnancy clinic that sought to enjoin the California Reproductive Freedom,...Prof. Michael Moreland of Villanova will join us to give his impressions of the oral argument.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion & Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2804free speech & election law,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/will-net-neutrality-survive-the-congressFeaturing:
Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC and Senior Partner, Fairfax Media Partners
Paul Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14327420Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:00:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith the official publication of the FCC's Open Internet Order, opponents in Congress will commence their efforts to repeal the Order under the Congressional Review Act. John Kneuer and Paul Larkin joined us for a Teleforum on March 5th at 2:00 pm as...Featuring:
Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC and Senior Partner, Fairfax Media Partners
Paul Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3049administrative law & regulatio,federalism,regulatory transparency projec,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/preview-lucia-v-sec
Featuring:
Shane Kelly, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14188160Fri, 02 Mar 2018 16:00:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the...
Featuring:
Shane Kelly, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3011administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-class-v-unitedIn a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the D.C. Circuit. Justice Breyer wrote in the majority opinion that a guilty plea does not in fact bar a defendant from raising appeals based on constitutional grounds. Justice Alito authored a dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, which criticized the majority for reaching a decision that has no clear basis in the Constitution.
Will Haun joins us to discuss the decision and its potential implications.
Featuring:
Will Haun, Attorney, Shearman & Sterling LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14177831Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRodney Class was arrested in May of 2013 when he violated federal law for possession of three firearms on the United States Capitol Grounds. Class pleaded guilty in the district court, but then later appealed his case to the US Court of Appeals for...In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the D.C. Circuit. Justice Breyer wrote in the majority opinion that a guilty plea does not in fact bar a defendant from raising appeals based on constitutional grounds. Justice Alito authored a dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, which criticized the majority for reaching a decision that has no clear basis in the Constitution.
Will Haun joins us to discuss the decision and its potential implications.
Featuring:
Will Haun, Attorney, Shearman & Sterling LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>956criminal law & procedure,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-minnesota-voters-allianFeaturing:
Mr. Stephen Klein, Attorney, Pillar of Law Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14168125Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyMost states have laws that prohibit electioneering within polling places on election day, and the Supreme Court has upheld buffer zones that extend this prohibition to areas immediately surrounding polling places. But Minnesota law goes beyond...Featuring:
Mr. Stephen Klein, Attorney, Pillar of Law Institute

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2603election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-u-s-v-microsoftBecause federal law is presumed not to apply outside the United States, the case presents the question whether the relevant conduct occurs domestically—whether the Act’s focus is the disclosure of electronic records available to the U.S. company, or whether its focus is the compelled retrieval of the data stored abroad. It is an increasingly important issue at a time when many leading email providers may store an email in one location and its attachments in another location entirely. Due to the potentially vast implications, more than 30 amicus briefs have been filed by several governments, members of Congress, numerous tech firms, privacy advocates, and law-enforcement officials.
John Elwood will attend the oral argument and then join us to discuss his thoughts on the proceedings.
Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14167724Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Stored Communications Act of 1986 authorizes federal, state, and local law enforcement officers to obtain subpoenas, orders, or warrants that permit them to seize emails. However, the storage of such data in the “cloud” of remote...Because federal law is presumed not to apply outside the United States, the case presents the question whether the relevant conduct occurs domestically—whether the Act’s focus is the disclosure of electronic records available to the U.S. company, or whether its focus is the compelled retrieval of the data stored abroad. It is an increasingly important issue at a time when many leading email providers may store an email in one location and its attachments in another location entirely. Due to the potentially vast implications, more than 30 amicus briefs have been filed by several governments, members of Congress, numerous tech firms, privacy advocates, and law-enforcement officials.
John Elwood will attend the oral argument and then join us to discuss his thoughts on the proceedings.
Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2898corporations,due process,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-janus-v-afscmeRay J. LaJeunesse of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation joins us to discuss his impressions of oral argument.
Featuring:
Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14157366Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:30:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyJanus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on February 26. This important case will determine whether it is constitutional for public sector unions to require all...Ray J. LaJeunesse of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation joins us to discuss his impressions of oral argument.
Featuring:
Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3163labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/music-licensingCongress has been debating music licensing reform for over five years. Now a coalition of industry participants seem to be coalescing around a number of bills pending in Congress, including the Music Modernization Act (reforming digital mechanical licensing), the Classics Act (providing compensation for pre-1972 recordings played on internet and satellite), and the Allocation for Music Producers Act (providing royalties for producers and engineers). Real changes to the system may finally be upon us. In this teleforum our experts will discuss music licensing, its flaws and features, and suggestions for reform.
Featuring:
Mr. Mitch Glazier, President, Recording Industry Association of America
Prof. Lawrence J. White, Robert Kavesh Professorship in Economics, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University
Moderator, Prof. David Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School

Please consider reading papers on this topic by the experts below.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14146749Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:00:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe system for licensing musical works in the U.S. and internationally is fractionalized, complex, regulated, adjudicated, derivative, and lacks sensitivity to market forces. Unlike other works covered by copyright, in which copyright owners and...Congress has been debating music licensing reform for over five years. Now a coalition of industry participants seem to be coalescing around a number of bills pending in Congress, including the Music Modernization Act (reforming digital mechanical licensing), the Classics Act (providing compensation for pre-1972 recordings played on internet and satellite), and the Allocation for Music Producers Act (providing royalties for producers and engineers). Real changes to the system may finally be upon us. In this teleforum our experts will discuss music licensing, its flaws and features, and suggestions for reform.
Featuring:
Mr. Mitch Glazier, President, Recording Industry Association of America
Prof. Lawrence J. White, Robert Kavesh Professorship in Economics, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University
Moderator, Prof. David Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School

Please consider reading papers on this topic by the experts below.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3510intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/new-developments-in-wisconsin-s-john-doeFeaturing:
Mr. Edward D. Greims, Partner, Graves Garrett, LLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14146323Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:00:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyBetween 2010 and 2013, a team of Wisconsin state officials assembled by the Milwaukee County District Attorney, and later involving the state’s Government Accountability Board, targeted the activities of certain groups who had supported Governor...Featuring:
Mr. Edward D. Greims, Partner, Graves Garrett, LLC

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2816campaign financecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/preview-janus-v-american-federation-of-sFeaturing:
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Editor-In-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14117273Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:20:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyJanus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on February 26. This important case will determine whether it is constitutional for public sector unions to require all...Featuring:
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Editor-In-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3220free speech & election law,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-myrick-v-warren-gay-mar
Featuring:
Stephanie Barclay, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14060660Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:23:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyA little-known case just concluded this week, but it may have big implications for the important national dialogue about conflicts between faith and sexual identity. In Myrick v. Warren, a federal judge ruled that the State of North Carolina violated...
Featuring:
Stephanie Barclay, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1785civil rights,free speech & election law,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/american-grand-strategy-in-the-age-of-trIn this book, a leading scholar of grand strategy helps to make sense of the headlines and the upheaval by providing sharp yet nuanced assessments of the most critical issues in American grand strategy today. Hal Brands asks, and answers, such questions as: Has America really blundered aimlessly in the world since the end of the Cold War, or has its grand strategy actually been mostly sensible and effective? Is America in terminal decline, or can it maintain its edge in a harsher and more competitive environment? Did the Obama administration pursue a policy of disastrous retrenchment, or did it execute a shrewd grand strategy focused on maximizing U.S. power for the long term? Does Donald Trump's presidency mean that American internationalism is dead? What type of grand strategy might America pursue in the age of Trump and after? What would happen if the United States radically pulled back from the world, as many leading academics―and, at certain moments, the current president―have advocated? How much military power does America need in the current international environment?
Grappling with these kinds of issues is essential to understanding the state of America's foreign relations today and what path the country might take in the years ahead. Join us to discuss American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump with author Hal Brands and Lester Munson of the BGR Group.
Featuring:
Hal Brands, Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Lester Munson, Principal, Government Affairs, BGR Group

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14052162Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:00:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmerican foreign policy is in a state of upheaval. The rise of Donald Trump and his "America First" platform have created more uncertainty about America's role in the world than at any time in recent decades. From the South China Sea, to the Middle...In this book, a leading scholar of grand strategy helps to make sense of the headlines and the upheaval by providing sharp yet nuanced assessments of the most critical issues in American grand strategy today. Hal Brands asks, and answers, such questions as: Has America really blundered aimlessly in the world since the end of the Cold War, or has its grand strategy actually been mostly sensible and effective? Is America in terminal decline, or can it maintain its edge in a harsher and more competitive environment? Did the Obama administration pursue a policy of disastrous retrenchment, or did it execute a shrewd grand strategy focused on maximizing U.S. power for the long term? Does Donald Trump's presidency mean that American internationalism is dead? What type of grand strategy might America pursue in the age of Trump and after? What would happen if the United States radically pulled back from the world, as many leading academics―and, at certain moments, the current president―have advocated? How much military power does America need in the current international environment?
Grappling with these kinds of issues is essential to understanding the state of America's foreign relations today and what path the country might take in the years ahead. Join us to discuss American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump with author Hal Brands and Lester Munson of the BGR Group.
Featuring:
Hal Brands, Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Lester Munson, Principal, Government Affairs, BGR Group

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3359foreign policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/should-congress-amend-section-101-of-theFeaturing:
Mr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy & Consulting
Mr. Dana S. Rao, Vice President, Intellectual Property and Litigation, Adobe Systems, Inc.
Mr. Robert Sachs, President, Robert R. Sachs PC
Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14046708Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis Teleforum addresses whether there is a need to amend Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what counts as an invention eligible for receiving patent protection. Between 2010 and 2014, the Supreme Court issued four decisions interpreting...Featuring:
Mr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy & Consulting
Mr. Dana S. Rao, Vice President, Intellectual Property and Litigation, Adobe Systems, Inc.
Mr. Robert Sachs, President, Robert R. Sachs PC
Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3468intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/conscience-and-religious-freedom-divisio
Featuring:
Roger Severino, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14045881Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:45:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 18, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the creation of a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The next day, HHS also announced a proposed conscience regulation coming...
Featuring:
Roger Severino, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1814healthcare,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/after-bristol-meyers-squibbAlthough Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF will likely put an end to the worst forum-shopping abuses by plaintiffs, they leave many questions unanswered. Just how much of a connection between the forum and the claims is necessary for specific jurisdiction? What will a plaintiff-by-plaintiff approach to specific jurisdiction mean for nationwide class actions and aggregated actions? And can a company be subject to general jurisdiction anywhere other than where it is headquartered and incorporated?
Sean Marotta will discuss these and other questions, surveying the personal-jurisdiction landscape after Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF.
Featuring:
Sean Marotta, Senior Associate, Hogan Lovells

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/14005803Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified its tests for specific and general personal jurisdiction. In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Court held that there must be a connection...Although Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF will likely put an end to the worst forum-shopping abuses by plaintiffs, they leave many questions unanswered. Just how much of a connection between the forum and the claims is necessary for specific jurisdiction? What will a plaintiff-by-plaintiff approach to specific jurisdiction mean for nationwide class actions and aggregated actions? And can a company be subject to general jurisdiction anywhere other than where it is headquartered and incorporated?
Sean Marotta will discuss these and other questions, surveying the personal-jurisdiction landscape after Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF.
Featuring:
Sean Marotta, Senior Associate, Hogan Lovells

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2686litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-in-national-as
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case last October. The issue is important because it is unclear where and when regulated parties can challenge certain types of federal rules interpreting the Clean Water Act. Filing a claim in the wrong court can result in losing the right to challenge the rule at all. Under a plain reading of Act, affected parties have six years to challenge the WOTUS rule or any subsequent rule defining the agency's general jurisdiction under the Act in a federal district court. But under the EPA's reading of the Act, affected parties would have only six months to challenge the rule in a federal court of appeals. Various State, industry, and landowner groups urge the High Court to rely on a plain reading of the Act to maximize the opportunity for the regulated public to challenge rules that define the scope of the Act.

On January 22, the Supreme Court released a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor holding that any challenges to WOTUS must be filed in federal district courts.

Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13990272Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:05:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyMultiple legal challenges to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency’s controversial rule redefining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) raise important questions. In National Association of Manufacturers v. DOD, the...
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case last October. The issue is important because it is unclear where and when regulated parties can challenge certain types of federal rules interpreting the Clean Water Act. Filing a claim in the wrong court can result in losing the right to challenge the rule at all. Under a plain reading of Act, affected parties have six years to challenge the WOTUS rule or any subsequent rule defining the agency's general jurisdiction under the Act in a federal district court. But under the EPA's reading of the Act, affected parties would have only six months to challenge the rule in a federal court of appeals. Various State, industry, and landowner groups urge the High Court to rely on a plain reading of the Act to maximize the opportunity for the regulated public to challenge rules that define the scope of the Act.

On January 22, the Supreme Court released a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor holding that any challenges to WOTUS must be filed in federal district courts.

Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1913environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-district-of-coBryan Weir joins us to discuss the implications of the decision.
Featuring:
Bryan Weir, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13990229Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:01:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 22th, the Supreme Court handed down a decision for District of Columbia v. Wesby. In this case, law enforcement officers responded to noise complaints of a party going on in a home where the owner was not present. The officers removed...Bryan Weir joins us to discuss the implications of the decision.
Featuring:
Bryan Weir, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1903criminal law & procedure,fourth amendment,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-aftermath-of-restoring-internet-freeThis Teleforum features a distinguished panel with expertise in European, African, Asian, Latin American, and Canadian telecommunications law, and considers lessons from foreign regulators’ attempts to police the Internet ecosystem.
Featuring:
Professor Eli Noam, Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility, Columbia Business School
Professor Roslyn Layton, PhD Fellow for the Center for Communication, Media and Information Studies at Aalborg University and Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Paul Beaudry, Professor, Lawyer and Research Associate, Montreal Economic Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13990213Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the recent Restoring Internet Freedom order, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to repeal the Obama administration’s network neutrality rules and restore the historical classification of broadband Internet...This Teleforum features a distinguished panel with expertise in European, African, Asian, Latin American, and Canadian telecommunications law, and considers lessons from foreign regulators’ attempts to police the Internet ecosystem.
Featuring:
Professor Eli Noam, Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility, Columbia Business School
Professor Roslyn Layton, PhD Fellow for the Center for Communication, Media and Information Studies at Aalborg University and Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Paul Beaudry, Professor, Lawyer and Research Associate, Montreal Economic Institute


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3165telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/false-claims-act-granston-memoThe memo affirms statements Granston made at a health care compliance conference in 2017, in which Granston indicated the DOJ might start dismissing qui tam causes of action brought by False Claims Act relators when it is determined the actions lack merit. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) provides that the government has a right to dismiss a qui tam action “notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action” by filing a motion with the court and provided the relator has had an opportunity to be heard. This ability in the past has been rarely used, and this memo could signify a significant shift in future DOJ practices.
Brandon J. Moss will join us to discuss the memo and its implications.
Featuring:
Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13975553Mon, 05 Feb 2018 11:53:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 10th, Michael Granston, the Director of the Commercial Litigation Branch within the United States Department of Justice’s Fraud Section, issued a memo that establishes an outline for DOJ attorneys to utilize when deciding whether or...The memo affirms statements Granston made at a health care compliance conference in 2017, in which Granston indicated the DOJ might start dismissing qui tam causes of action brought by False Claims Act relators when it is determined the actions lack merit. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) provides that the government has a right to dismiss a qui tam action “notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action” by filing a motion with the court and provided the relator has had an opportunity to be heard. This ability in the past has been rarely used, and this memo could signify a significant shift in future DOJ practices.
Brandon J. Moss will join us to discuss the memo and its implications.
Featuring:
Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein]]>1494cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/update-release-of-the-nunes-memorandumFeaturing:
David B. Rivkin Jr., Constitutional Lawyer and Former White House Counsel

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13959101Fri, 02 Feb 2018 18:00:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Friday, February 2, President Trump agreed to release a memo written by the House Intelligence Committee about FBI surveillance activity of the members of the Trump campaign that occurred before the President took office. Those opposed to the...Featuring:
David B. Rivkin Jr., Constitutional Lawyer and Former White House Counsel

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3660administrative law & regulatio,federalism & separation of pow,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/nlrb-trumps-five-obama-board-precedentsUPMC Presbyterian Hospital, 365 NLRB No. 153 (December 11, 2017) overruled United States Postal Service, 364 NLRB No. 116 (2016) reinstating administrative law judge authority to accept settlements over the objection of the NLRB General Counsel and the charging party considering Independent Stave reasonableness factors.
The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (December 14, 2017) issues a new test for evaluating workplace rules. No longer will the Board consider whether rules “chill” employee rights. Rather, if the rule is not explicitly unlawful, its potential impact on protected concerted activity and the employer’s legitimate business justifications will be evaluated to determine legitimacy.
Joint employer status was returned to prior, common-law standards in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (December 14, 2017). The new Board majority overturned the 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015).
PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (December 15, 2017) overruled the Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011) decision, which legitimized “micro-units,” allowing unions to organize whatever group, no matter how small. The Board majority abandoned the employer burden of establishing an “overwhelming” community of interest standard and returned to traditional criteria.
An employer’s ability to implement changes to established benefit plans was restored in Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (December 15, 2017). The Board majority overruled E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016) reasoning that actions are not a “change” if similar in kind and degree with established past practice of comparable unilateral action.
Featuring:
John Raudabaugh, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation; Former Member, National Labor Relations

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13946893Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:00:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn December, the NLRB released many important decisions. John Raudabaugh, Former NLRB Member, will join us to discuss the new developments, including: UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, 365 NLRB No. 153 (December 11, 2017) overruled United States Postal...UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, 365 NLRB No. 153 (December 11, 2017) overruled United States Postal Service, 364 NLRB No. 116 (2016) reinstating administrative law judge authority to accept settlements over the objection of the NLRB General Counsel and the charging party considering Independent Stave reasonableness factors.
The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (December 14, 2017) issues a new test for evaluating workplace rules. No longer will the Board consider whether rules “chill” employee rights. Rather, if the rule is not explicitly unlawful, its potential impact on protected concerted activity and the employer’s legitimate business justifications will be evaluated to determine legitimacy.
Joint employer status was returned to prior, common-law standards in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (December 14, 2017). The new Board majority overturned the 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015).
PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (December 15, 2017) overruled the Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011) decision, which legitimized “micro-units,” allowing unions to organize whatever group, no matter how small. The Board majority abandoned the employer burden of establishing an “overwhelming” community of interest standard and returned to traditional criteria.
An employer’s ability to implement changes to established benefit plans was restored in Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (December 15, 2017). The Board majority overruled E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016) reasoning that actions are not a “change” if similar in kind and degree with established past practice of comparable unilateral action.
Featuring:
John Raudabaugh, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation; Former Member, National Labor Relations

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2292cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/new-frontiers-for-tribal-immunity-patentIn 2017, Allergan assigned a portfolio of patents for it popular Restasis eye drops to the St. Regis Mohawk. At the time, the patents were the subject of district court litigation Allergan brought against several generic drug companies that had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications. At the same time, the ANDA filers petitioned the PTAB to revoke Allergan’s patents. After trial but before final judgment, Allergan assigned its patents to the Mohawk tribe. The tribe moved to terminate the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB. What has followed has been months of briefing that has drawn extraordinary attention, including numerous amicus briefs, to the PTAB.
Featuring:
Prof. Gregory Ablavsky, Stanford Law School
Mr. Aaron Cooper, Vice President, Global Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance
Mr. Michael Shore, Partner, Shore Chan Depumpo LLC
Moderator: Mr. Brian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13937232Wed, 31 Jan 2018 19:35:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe courts and Congress have long acknowledged the sovereign status of Native American tribes. Tribes, like states and related instrumentalities such as public universities, may invoke sovereign immunity to avoid being hauled into federal court and...In 2017, Allergan assigned a portfolio of patents for it popular Restasis eye drops to the St. Regis Mohawk. At the time, the patents were the subject of district court litigation Allergan brought against several generic drug companies that had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications. At the same time, the ANDA filers petitioned the PTAB to revoke Allergan’s patents. After trial but before final judgment, Allergan assigned its patents to the Mohawk tribe. The tribe moved to terminate the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB. What has followed has been months of briefing that has drawn extraordinary attention, including numerous amicus briefs, to the PTAB.
Featuring:
Prof. Gregory Ablavsky, Stanford Law School
Mr. Aaron Cooper, Vice President, Global Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance
Mr. Michael Shore, Partner, Shore Chan Depumpo LLC
Moderator: Mr. Brian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>4033intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/foreign-corrupt-practices-act
George Terwilliger and John Richter will be joining us for this Teleforum to discuss the following elements surrounding this announcement: the disclosure dilemma and how the policy affects it, the fine print to consider before rushing into disclosure, how FCPA prosecutors may define “repeat offenders,” thereby disqualifying a company from voluntary disclosure benefits, and the implications of a policy encouraging public pronouncements of wrong doing based on a declination of uncharged and unproved conduct.

Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
Hon. George J. Terwilliger, III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13896825Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:00:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyDeputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced on Nov. 29 that the Department of Justice Foreign Corrupt Practices Act “Pilot Program,” which was introduced in 2016, will be made permanent. The program establishes a presumption of a declination of...
George Terwilliger and John Richter will be joining us for this Teleforum to discuss the following elements surrounding this announcement: the disclosure dilemma and how the policy affects it, the fine print to consider before rushing into disclosure, how FCPA prosecutors may define “repeat offenders,” thereby disqualifying a company from voluntary disclosure benefits, and the implications of a policy encouraging public pronouncements of wrong doing based on a declination of uncharged and unproved conduct.

Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
Hon. George J. Terwilliger, III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3226administrative law & regulatio,corporations,criminal law & procedure,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-mccoy-v-louisianaMcCoy subsequently refused to take a plea deal, and his counsel overrode his veto and notified him that they would be conceding his guilt in arguing for verdicts of second degree murder rather than the first-degree murders as originally charged. McCoy attempted to have his counsel discharged, but the court denied his motion. The jury found him guilty on three first degree murder charges, and recommended the death penalty. McCoy appealed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied, affirming the convictions of the lower court. The court reasoned the concession of guilt was a strategic decision meant for the betterment of the client, and that therefore the concession was not akin to abdicating a defense.
The question before the court is, when a defense counsel chooses to concede a criminal defendant’s guilt over the that defendant’s express objections, does that violate the defendant’s sixth amendment right to assistance of counsel?
Jay Schweikert attended the oral argument and joins us to discuss the case.
Featuring:
Jay Schweikert, Policy Analyst, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13864243Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:00:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyRobert McCoy was arrested for three murders in 2008. After being found indigent, the court appointed him a public defender. In 2009, McCoy made a motion to remove his public defender because he was not convinced that the attorney was arguing for his...McCoy subsequently refused to take a plea deal, and his counsel overrode his veto and notified him that they would be conceding his guilt in arguing for verdicts of second degree murder rather than the first-degree murders as originally charged. McCoy attempted to have his counsel discharged, but the court denied his motion. The jury found him guilty on three first degree murder charges, and recommended the death penalty. McCoy appealed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied, affirming the convictions of the lower court. The court reasoned the concession of guilt was a strategic decision meant for the betterment of the client, and that therefore the concession was not akin to abdicating a defense.
The question before the court is, when a defense counsel chooses to concede a criminal defendant’s guilt over the that defendant’s express objections, does that violate the defendant’s sixth amendment right to assistance of counsel?
Jay Schweikert attended the oral argument and joins us to discuss the case.
Featuring:
Jay Schweikert, Policy Analyst, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2636criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/social-media-content-controlAt the same time Google and Facebook assert they are free to run their private businesses as they deem appropriate. They also face intensive pressure from American politicians and foreign governments to moderate their platforms. Facebook and Google were called before a committee of the House of Representatives, which assailed them for doing too little about “fake news” on their sites. In Germany, Facebook was recently compelled to remove a post critical of Islamic migrants.
This Teleforum will consider the obligations, if any, that American law, including the antitrust laws and the First Amendment, place on popular social media outlets. It will consider whether they can, or can be required to, restrict online content that some deem objectionable.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Arthur, L. Q. C. Lamar Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law

Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law, Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute & Supervisor, Privacy Law Certificate


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13862799Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn two recently filed lawsuits conservative organizations have complained that Google has restricted their access to readers. Gab, which provides its own site for conservative and alt right voices, complained when Google refused to include Gab’s...At the same time Google and Facebook assert they are free to run their private businesses as they deem appropriate. They also face intensive pressure from American politicians and foreign governments to moderate their platforms. Facebook and Google were called before a committee of the House of Representatives, which assailed them for doing too little about “fake news” on their sites. In Germany, Facebook was recently compelled to remove a post critical of Islamic migrants.
This Teleforum will consider the obligations, if any, that American law, including the antitrust laws and the First Amendment, place on popular social media outlets. It will consider whether they can, or can be required to, restrict online content that some deem objectionable.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Arthur, L. Q. C. Lamar Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law

Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law, Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute & Supervisor, Privacy Law Certificate


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>4032corporations,first amendment,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-reformer-and-the-rule-of-law This book, written by D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Stephen F. Williams, tells the story of Maklakov’s efforts and his analysis of the reasons for their ultimate failure. It is thus, in part, an example for movements seeking to liberalize authoritarian countries today―both a warning and a guide.

Featuring:
Hon. Stephen F. Williams, Senior United States Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Prof. Julia Fromholz, Director, Rule of Law & Governance Program, Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13834927Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:00:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyBesides absolutists of the right (the tsar and his adherents) and left (Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks), the Russian political landscape in 1917 featured moderates seeking liberal reform and a rapid evolution towards a constitutional monarchy. Vasily... This book, written by D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Stephen F. Williams, tells the story of Maklakov’s efforts and his analysis of the reasons for their ultimate failure. It is thus, in part, an example for movements seeking to liberalize authoritarian countries today―both a warning and a guide.

Featuring:
Hon. Stephen F. Williams, Senior United States Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Prof. Julia Fromholz, Director, Rule of Law & Governance Program, Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2805founding era & historycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-case-for-partisan-judicial-electionsFeaturing:
Prof. Chris W. Bonneau, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh
Prof. Scott W. Gaylord, Professor of Law, Elon University School of Law
Peter Bisbee, The Federalist Society (Moderator)
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13841927Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:00:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us in a discussion with our experts, Professor Chris Bonneau and Professor Scott Gaylord, as we review The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections, a new white paper from Professor Bonneau that argues partisan judicial elections are the best way to...Featuring:
Prof. Chris W. Bonneau, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh
Prof. Scott W. Gaylord, Professor of Law, Elon University School of Law
Peter Bisbee, The Federalist Society (Moderator)
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3453state courtscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/is-the-parsonage-allowance-allowedThis Teleforum will examine the nuts and bolts of the parsonage allowance, including its history as well as the practical impact that its loss would impose on religious congregations nationwide. The primary arguments for and against its constitutionality will be explored.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
John Van Drunen, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)
Michael Martin, Vice President and Legal Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13807908Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:00:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast month, in a challenge brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin federal district court ruled that the “parsonage allowance,” 26 U.S.C. § 107(2), violates the federal Establishment Clause. Enacted in 1954, the...This Teleforum will examine the nuts and bolts of the parsonage allowance, including its history as well as the practical impact that its loss would impose on religious congregations nationwide. The primary arguments for and against its constitutionality will be explored.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
John Van Drunen, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)
Michael Martin, Vice President and Legal Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3725constitution,first amendment,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/nevada-recall
Featuring:
Christian Adams, General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation, Election Law Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13778714Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA current lawsuit in federal court in Nevada is endeavoring to stop a recall election for several Nevada Senators. The lawsuit argues that recall elections necessarily violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because racial and language minority...
Featuring:
Christian Adams, General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation, Election Law Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2050civil rights,election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/exxonmobil-litigation-updateFeaturing:
Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138. For press, please RSVP by emailing tbuchanan@crcpublicrelations.com.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13778965Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:00:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, January 8, ExxonMobil filed a petition to depose officials of the cities and counties in California that are suing to hold Exxon liable for necessary infrastructure improvements and damages caused by the effects of global climate change....Featuring:
Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138. For press, please RSVP by emailing tbuchanan@crcpublicrelations.com.]]>2922environmental & energy law,federalism,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/justice-department-and-marijuana-enforceFeaturing:
Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
Moderator: Marc A. Levin, Vice President, Criminal Justice Policy, and Policy Director, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13777709Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, January 4th, Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew a Justice Department memo issued in 2013 by the Obama Department of Justice that told federal prosecutors to focus on prosecuting marijuana dealers who sold to children, committed...Featuring:
Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
Moderator: Marc A. Levin, Vice President, Criminal Justice Policy, and Policy Director, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3753civil rights,criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-harvest-family-church-The churches filed an emergency request for injunctive relief, and FEMA conceded the merits but asked for more time to revise its policy while still refusing to grant churches equal treatment. In December, the district court ruled against the churches, and they filed an emergency appeal to the Fifth Circuit requesting an injunction pending appeal and an expedited appeal. The Fifth Circuit granted an expedited appeal and denied an injunction.
Diana Verm of Becket will join us to discuss where the case stands after the FEMA announcement.
Featuring:
Diana Verm, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13749432Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 2, 2018 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that it would expand access to disaster relief to private nonprofit houses of worship. Previously, following natural disasters, churches, synagogues, and other houses of...The churches filed an emergency request for injunctive relief, and FEMA conceded the merits but asked for more time to revise its policy while still refusing to grant churches equal treatment. In December, the district court ruled against the churches, and they filed an emergency appeal to the Fifth Circuit requesting an injunction pending appeal and an expedited appeal. The Fifth Circuit granted an expedited appeal and denied an injunction.
Diana Verm of Becket will join us to discuss where the case stands after the FEMA announcement.
Featuring:
Diana Verm, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1305cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/prosecutorial-immunity_1The policy of absolute prosecutorial immunity comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court, which took 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s command that “every person” who, acting under color of law, violates the rights of another, “shall be liable to the party injured,” and added “except for prosecutors.” Was the Court’s originalist reasoning sound? Would a different policy open the floodgates and subject prosecutors to endless litigation, as the majority feared? And are there really other ways of ensuring proper accountability for some of the most powerful actors in our system of government?
This Teleforum considers whether it is time to reconsider absolute prosecutorial immunity and, if so, how we might balance the need for accountability and redress with the very real concerns of prosecutorial independence and efficacy.
Featuring:
Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
Geoffrey D. Wilson, Director At-Large, Central District of California, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13725781Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:55:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyProsecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their own misconduct. For example, even if a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence in violation of professional ethics and a defendant’s constitutional rights, and this willful...The policy of absolute prosecutorial immunity comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court, which took 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s command that “every person” who, acting under color of law, violates the rights of another, “shall be liable to the party injured,” and added “except for prosecutors.” Was the Court’s originalist reasoning sound? Would a different policy open the floodgates and subject prosecutors to endless litigation, as the majority feared? And are there really other ways of ensuring proper accountability for some of the most powerful actors in our system of government?
This Teleforum considers whether it is time to reconsider absolute prosecutorial immunity and, if so, how we might balance the need for accountability and redress with the very real concerns of prosecutorial independence and efficacy.
Featuring:
Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
Geoffrey D. Wilson, Director At-Large, Central District of California, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3512criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/weyerhaeuser-v-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-serIn January 5th conference, the Supreme Court is expected to take up the cert petition in a case arising out of the Fifth Circuit, Weyerhaeuser. The case involves federal government regulation of private land in Louisiana for the purpose of protecting an endangered species, the dusky gopher frog. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has asserted power under the Endangered Species Act to declare private land “critical habitat,” for the protection of this endangered species though the frog has not been seen there for 50 years and cannot live there absent a radical change in the use of the land. The Service has stated that it "will likely increasingly use” this authority to designate non-habitat areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. Several organizations have challenged the Service’s authority and are appealing the divided decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case or not, Weyerhaeuser will clearly be an important environmental law case.
Featuring:
Timothy S. Bishop, Partner, Mayer Brown
Prof. Dave Owen, Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law San Francisco
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13718942Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:21:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDoes the Endangered Species Act authorize FWS to designate as “critical habitat” for an endangered species private land that is not inhabited by the species and that cannot supply habitat without a radical change in land use? Should the...In January 5th conference, the Supreme Court is expected to take up the cert petition in a case arising out of the Fifth Circuit, Weyerhaeuser. The case involves federal government regulation of private land in Louisiana for the purpose of protecting an endangered species, the dusky gopher frog. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has asserted power under the Endangered Species Act to declare private land “critical habitat,” for the protection of this endangered species though the frog has not been seen there for 50 years and cannot live there absent a radical change in the use of the land. The Service has stated that it "will likely increasingly use” this authority to designate non-habitat areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. Several organizations have challenged the Service’s authority and are appealing the divided decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case or not, Weyerhaeuser will clearly be an important environmental law case.
Featuring:
Timothy S. Bishop, Partner, Mayer Brown
Prof. Dave Owen, Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law San Francisco
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3929environmental & energy law,property lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-clean-power-plan-litigation-and-reguThe Trump Administration's proposed rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan disagrees with the Obama Administration's previous interpretation of Clean Air Act section 111(d). The Obama Administration interpreted section 111(d) to allow it to require compliance with overall emissions limits that effectively require changes outside the "fence line" of power plants, including shifting power generation to cleaner sources from sources deemed to be less clean. In the Trump Administration's view, section 111(d) is limited to authorizing EPA to require the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) achievable through technological improvements within individual power plants. The Trump Administration's proposed rule also reassesses the cost of complying with the CPP, which opponents had argued was improperly minimized by the Obama administration. EPA has not yet proposed an alternative rule to replace the CPP, but EPA has stated that it intends to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near future that will solicit information on systems of emission reduction that are in accord with the legal interpretation set forth in EPA's proposed rule to withdraw the CPP.
With the comment period closing shortly, a number of important legal and policy questions are now on the horizon, including these: (1) likely next steps in the still-pending litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan; (2) the administrative law issues and litigation possibilities that are likely to arise when and if EPA proceeds with its proposed repeal of the CPP; and (3) questions about the options that the Administration has for crafting a proposed replacement rule; and (4) questions about the prospects for litigation challenging any such replacement. EPA, industry parties, and non-governmental organizations all have strong and disparate views on the substantive legal and policy paths that EPA should pursue to comply with its statutory obligations and protect the environment, without imposing inappropriate burdens on regulated parties.

Featuring:

-- David Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council

-- Tom Lorenzen, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13725022Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:00:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn January 16, 2018, the comment period will close on the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (proposed rule), issued in October 2017, that would repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP), an Obama Administration rule that would...The Trump Administration's proposed rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan disagrees with the Obama Administration's previous interpretation of Clean Air Act section 111(d). The Obama Administration interpreted section 111(d) to allow it to require compliance with overall emissions limits that effectively require changes outside the "fence line" of power plants, including shifting power generation to cleaner sources from sources deemed to be less clean. In the Trump Administration's view, section 111(d) is limited to authorizing EPA to require the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) achievable through technological improvements within individual power plants. The Trump Administration's proposed rule also reassesses the cost of complying with the CPP, which opponents had argued was improperly minimized by the Obama administration. EPA has not yet proposed an alternative rule to replace the CPP, but EPA has stated that it intends to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near future that will solicit information on systems of emission reduction that are in accord with the legal interpretation set forth in EPA's proposed rule to withdraw the CPP.
With the comment period closing shortly, a number of important legal and policy questions are now on the horizon, including these: (1) likely next steps in the still-pending litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan; (2) the administrative law issues and litigation possibilities that are likely to arise when and if EPA proceeds with its proposed repeal of the CPP; and (3) questions about the options that the Administration has for crafting a proposed replacement rule; and (4) questions about the prospects for litigation challenging any such replacement. EPA, industry parties, and non-governmental organizations all have strong and disparate views on the substantive legal and policy paths that EPA should pursue to comply with its statutory obligations and protect the environment, without imposing inappropriate burdens on regulated parties.

Featuring:

-- David Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council

-- Tom Lorenzen, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP]]>3725administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-change-of-guard-at-the-cfpbProfessor John C. Eastman will join us to discuss the CFPB and why this battle may not be over.
Featuring:
Prof. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13671774Tue, 26 Dec 2017 19:59:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn the day he was to resign, former CFPB Director Richard Cordray appointed his former Chief of Staff Leandra English to deputy director. The Dodd-Frank Act states that the deputy director is to “serve as acting Director in the absence or...Professor John C. Eastman will join us to discuss the CFPB and why this battle may not be over.
Featuring:
Prof. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2390administrative law & regulatio,federalismcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/disparate-impact-in-school-discipline
Critics claim that this has resulted in students not being disciplined who should be, with the resulting disruption meaning that many students — and disproportionately poor and minority students — now have worse learning environments and that some teachers are being put at physical risk. Proponents of the policy claim it is necessary to protect the disciplined.

Jason Riley of the Manhattan Institute has recently written on this topic in his Wall Street Journal column, and Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity has worked on this issue for the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. Both experts will join us to discuss this important topic.

Featuring:
Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Jason Riley, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Columnist, The Wall Street Journal; Author: False Black Power?

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13670275Tue, 26 Dec 2017 09:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Obama administration was aggressive in its use of the “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement, which holds that policies that have a different statistical result for various demographic groups are illegally discriminatory even if...
Critics claim that this has resulted in students not being disciplined who should be, with the resulting disruption meaning that many students — and disproportionately poor and minority students — now have worse learning environments and that some teachers are being put at physical risk. Proponents of the policy claim it is necessary to protect the disciplined.

Jason Riley of the Manhattan Institute has recently written on this topic in his Wall Street Journal column, and Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity has worked on this issue for the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. Both experts will join us to discuss this important topic.

Featuring:
Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Jason Riley, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Columnist, The Wall Street Journal; Author: False Black Power?

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3773civil rights,education policy,federalism,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-logan-act-todayFeaturing:
Prof. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13638465Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent developments have lead to the Logan Act resurfacing in the news. The Act was enacted in 1799 and prohibits unathorized persons from engaging in negotiations with foreign state officals. It has never been used to successfully prosecute anyone in...Featuring:
Prof. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3754foreign policy,international law & tradecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-juliana-v-united-states_1In June, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a rare mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit in Juliana v. United States, a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Juliana plaintiffs claim that the President and other federal government officials have violated their right to a stable climate, which the plaintiffs characterize as a fundamental, unenumerated right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs separately claim, on a public-trust theory, that the federal government has an enforceable obligation to ensure that the atmosphere and other resources are protected from climate change. In November 2016, the district court denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss the complaint. DOJ requested permission for an interlocutory appeal. After the district court denied that request, DOJ filed its mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit.
In its petition, DOJ asks the Ninth Circuit to direct the district court to dismiss the Juliana case. DOJ argues that the district court’s decision upholds an “amorphous and sweeping right” as judicially enforceable, and would permit that court “to dictate and manage – indefinitely – all federal policy decisions related to fossil fuels, energy production, alternative energy sources, public lands, and air quality standards.” The plaintiffs respond that their constitutional claim is grounded in established, fundamental rights to life and personal security; property; autonomy; and dignity. They further argue that the drastic and extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is not needed to short-circuit the case. A wide range of non-governmental organizations, plus a group of several dozen law professors, submitted eight proposed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs.
Professor Jim May and Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation discuss the oral arguments and potential impacts of the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming decision, including possible implications for climate-change litigation pending in other courts. The Ninth Circuit may weigh in on a number of very important questions, including questions about justiciability (Article III standing and the political-question doctrine); the substantive reach of the substantive due-process and public-trust doctrines; and the criteria for granting mandamus relief.
Featuring:
James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School
Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13636079Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 11, a Ninth Circuit panel heard argument in San Francisco in an unusual appellate proceeding that presents the question whether the U.S. Constitution provides judicially enforceable protection to individual citizens against governmental...In June, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a rare mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit in Juliana v. United States, a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Juliana plaintiffs claim that the President and other federal government officials have violated their right to a stable climate, which the plaintiffs characterize as a fundamental, unenumerated right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs separately claim, on a public-trust theory, that the federal government has an enforceable obligation to ensure that the atmosphere and other resources are protected from climate change. In November 2016, the district court denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss the complaint. DOJ requested permission for an interlocutory appeal. After the district court denied that request, DOJ filed its mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit.
In its petition, DOJ asks the Ninth Circuit to direct the district court to dismiss the Juliana case. DOJ argues that the district court’s decision upholds an “amorphous and sweeping right” as judicially enforceable, and would permit that court “to dictate and manage – indefinitely – all federal policy decisions related to fossil fuels, energy production, alternative energy sources, public lands, and air quality standards.” The plaintiffs respond that their constitutional claim is grounded in established, fundamental rights to life and personal security; property; autonomy; and dignity. They further argue that the drastic and extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is not needed to short-circuit the case. A wide range of non-governmental organizations, plus a group of several dozen law professors, submitted eight proposed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs.
Professor Jim May and Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation discuss the oral arguments and potential impacts of the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming decision, including possible implications for climate-change litigation pending in other courts. The Ninth Circuit may weigh in on a number of very important questions, including questions about justiciability (Article III standing and the political-question doctrine); the substantive reach of the substantive due-process and public-trust doctrines; and the criteria for granting mandamus relief.
Featuring:
James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School
Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3779administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,property lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-marinello-v-united-statFeaturing:
Theodore Cooperstein, General Counsel, United States Office of Personnel Management

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13615655Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:52:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe petitioner in this case was convicted on nine counts of tax-related offenses stemming from his business practices, which included not filing personal or corporate income tax returns. In addition, he shredded bank statements and business records....Featuring:
Theodore Cooperstein, General Counsel, United States Office of Personnel Management

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1994criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/a-debt-against-the-living-an-introductioProf. McConnell will join author Ilan Wurman to discuss A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Ilan Wurman, Author, A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism; Nonresident Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13599686Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:08:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyThomas Jefferson famously wrote that the earth belongs to the living. His letter to James Madison is often quoted for the proposition that we should not be bound to the 'dead hand of the past', suggesting that the Constitution should instead be...Prof. McConnell will join author Ilan Wurman to discuss A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Ilan Wurman, Author, A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism; Nonresident Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3565founding era & historycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-political-theory-of-the-american-fouAuthor Prof. Thomas West and Prof. Eric Claeys will join us to discuss this new book.

Featuring:
Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Thomas G. West, Paul Ermine Potter and Dawn Tibbetts Potter Endowed Professorship in Politics, Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship, Hillsdale College

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13589371Thu, 14 Dec 2017 22:41:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom provides a complete overview of the American Founders' political theory, covering natural rights, natural law, state of nature, social...Author Prof. Thomas West and Prof. Eric Claeys will join us to discuss this new book.

Featuring:
Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Thomas G. West, Paul Ermine Potter and Dawn Tibbetts Potter Endowed Professorship in Politics, Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship, Hillsdale College

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3632founding era & historycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-rubin-v-islamic-republiIn 1997, Hamas, a terrorist group aided by Iran, sent three suicide bombers into a Jerusalem shopping mall, killing 7 people and injuring 200. Eight American victims sued Iran and won a judgement for $423.5 million in damages. When Iran did not pay, the victims tried to seize Iranian artifacts housed at the University of Chicago. The question at hand is whether they should be permitted to under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g).
Andrew Grossman will join us to describe the oral argument.

Featuring:
Andrew M. Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13560536Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:37:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 4th, the Supreme Court heared oral arguments in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran. The case involves a question of statutory interpretation, whether 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g), an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, permits...In 1997, Hamas, a terrorist group aided by Iran, sent three suicide bombers into a Jerusalem shopping mall, killing 7 people and injuring 200. Eight American victims sued Iran and won a judgement for $423.5 million in damages. When Iran did not pay, the victims tried to seize Iranian artifacts housed at the University of Chicago. The question at hand is whether they should be permitted to under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g).
Andrew Grossman will join us to describe the oral argument.

Featuring:
Andrew M. Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1836foreign policy,international law & trade,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-christie-v-national-colFeaturing:
Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton & Williams LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13539977Fri, 08 Dec 2017 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No....Featuring:
Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton & Williams LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2672federalismcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/written-out-of-history-the-forgotten-fouhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/13541319Fri, 08 Dec 2017 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society2457founding era & historycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/regulatory-federalismhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/13539952Wed, 06 Dec 2017 14:00:45 +0000The Federalist Society1905cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-masterpiece-cakeshop-v-Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.
The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom at the Christian Legal Society, will attend oral argument and join us to discuss her impressions.

Featuring:
Kim Colby, Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13516295Tue, 05 Dec 2017 22:30:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 5th, The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC. The case, one of the most highly publicized of the term, involves questions of religious liberty, expressive acts, and compelled speech. Two men,...Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.
The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom at the Christian Legal Society, will attend oral argument and join us to discuss her impressions.

Featuring:
Kim Colby, Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3967cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-cyan-v-beaver-county-emhttps://api.spreaker.com/episode/13504259Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:31:00 +0000The Federalist Society1657corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/recent-developments-in-corporate-mergers
Featuring:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13506701Mon, 04 Dec 2017 20:35:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn what some see as a surprise move, the Department of Justice filed suit to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger, claiming the merger would harm consumers, innovation, and competition. AT&T has announced that it plans to fight the challenge in...
Featuring:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2577administrative law & regulatio,corporations,federalism,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-digital-reality-trust-iFeaturing:
Todd Braunstein, Global Head of Legal Investigations, Willis Towers Watson

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13503838Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:02:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhile working for Digital Reality Trust, Paul Somers filed reports to senior management concerned about possible violations of securities fraud. Somers was subsequently fired from his position and sued under the anti-retaliation clause for...Featuring:
Todd Braunstein, Global Head of Legal Investigations, Willis Towers Watson

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1557criminal law & procedure,due process,financial services & e-commerccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-carpenter-v-united-statFeaturing:
Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Michael Sussmann, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13473391Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:27:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyArrests made in an armed robbery case occurred because the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to obtain “transactional records” of the cell phones owned by the alleged coconspirators. These records track the date and time of a call...Featuring:
Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Michael Sussmann, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2191criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/preview-masterpiece-cakeshop-v-colorado-The case deals with the important act of determining the religious liberties of persons while balancing the promotion of equality through anti-discriminatory laws. Furthermore, questions of free speech arise. Phillips considers his custom cakes an art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Featuring:
Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel, The Becket Fund
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13456361Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOral arguments for a case involving a Denver-based, Christian baker are slated for December 5th of this year. The case tackles questions of religious liberty, expressive acts, and compelled speech. Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were...The case deals with the important act of determining the religious liberties of persons while balancing the promotion of equality through anti-discriminatory laws. Furthermore, questions of free speech arise. Phillips considers his custom cakes an art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Featuring:
Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel, The Becket Fund
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>4567civil rights,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oil-states-and-sas-inst
Has the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.

SAS Institute v. Matal

In SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges.

The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims.

The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.

Featuring:
Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLC
Mr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13456977Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:00:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyOil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group Has the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear...
Has the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.

SAS Institute v. Matal

In SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges.

The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims.

The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.

Featuring:
Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLC
Mr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3636intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/re-negotiating-nafta-non-national-tribunSupporters of such international tribunals state that these Chapters provide for efficient and impartial dispute resolution. However, others have raised concerns regarding the lack of judicial review by U.S Courts, as well as issues connected with certain basic notions of national sovereignty. In this TeleForum, we will discuss the merits and problems of non-national tribunals and their central role in the current discussions related to the re-negotiation of NAFTA, including their constitutionality and their role in our judicial and political systems.
Featuring:
Prof. Alvaro Santos, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
John M. Herrmann II, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Moderator: Daniel B. Pickard, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13396446Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:01:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyChapters 11 and 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provide for international tribunals with authority to adjudicate disputes on a wide range of subjects, including anti-dumping and countervailing duties, expropriation, and...Supporters of such international tribunals state that these Chapters provide for efficient and impartial dispute resolution. However, others have raised concerns regarding the lack of judicial review by U.S Courts, as well as issues connected with certain basic notions of national sovereignty. In this TeleForum, we will discuss the merits and problems of non-national tribunals and their central role in the current discussions related to the re-negotiation of NAFTA, including their constitutionality and their role in our judicial and political systems.
Featuring:
Prof. Alvaro Santos, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
John M. Herrmann II, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Moderator: Daniel B. Pickard, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3683international law & tradecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/wireless-broadband-infrastructure-policy
Featuring:
Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, The Wireless Infrastructure Association
Hon. Robert M. McDowell, Partner, Cooley LLP
James Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Moderator: Gardner H. Foster, Senior Counsel, Government Affairs, Sprint

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13393468Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:22:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 20, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) initiated a proceeding to assess the regulatory barriers the wireless industry faces as it deploys the infrastructure necessary to provide broadband services to its...
Featuring:
Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, The Wireless Infrastructure Association
Hon. Robert M. McDowell, Partner, Cooley LLP
James Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Moderator: Gardner H. Foster, Senior Counsel, Government Affairs, Sprint

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3754administrative law & regulatio,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/congress-can-fix-the-regulatory-mess-it-
In recent years some members of Congress have sought on several occasions to address these problems with various bills including the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny” or REINS Act. Professor Schoenbrod rejects the idea that the problem originated in the agencies and offers his own alternative solutions.

Hon. Susan Dudley, Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, will join us to moderate this interesting discussion with Professor Schoenbrod.

Featuring:
Professor David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Moderator: Hon. Susan Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, The George Washington University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13397162Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyNew York Law School Professor David Schoenbrod, author of DC Confidential: Inside the Five Tricks of Washington, believes that Congress created a “regulatory mess” by commanding agencies to impose duties needed to protect the public. He contends that...
In recent years some members of Congress have sought on several occasions to address these problems with various bills including the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny” or REINS Act. Professor Schoenbrod rejects the idea that the problem originated in the agencies and offers his own alternative solutions.

Hon. Susan Dudley, Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, will join us to moderate this interesting discussion with Professor Schoenbrod.

Featuring:
Professor David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Moderator: Hon. Susan Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, The George Washington University

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2561administrative law & regulatio,article i initiativecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/north-korea-conundrum-sanctions-leverageFeaturing:
Mr. Daniel Blumenthal, Director of Asian Studies and Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Prof. Stephan Haggard, Lawrence and Sallye Krause Professor of Korea-Pacific Studies, GPS
Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofsta School of Law
Moderator: Bruce Klingner, Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia, The Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13331123Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:15:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyPresident Trump is pivoting off of the prior administration's "strategic patience" approach to North Korea in favor of a confrontational posture in the face of North Korea's nuclear development and missile test provocations. In this Teleforum, expert...Featuring:
Mr. Daniel Blumenthal, Director of Asian Studies and Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Prof. Stephan Haggard, Lawrence and Sallye Krause Professor of Korea-Pacific Studies, GPS
Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofsta School of Law
Moderator: Bruce Klingner, Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia, The Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3712international law & trade,security & privacycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/preview-oil-states-energy-services-llc-v
Featuring:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
John Thorne, Partner, Kellogg, Hansen Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13315570Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:49:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyOil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC will be argued in the Supreme Court on November 27. While the case originated from a patent infringement suit over hydraulic fracking technique, it has made it to the Supreme Court for Oil...
Featuring:
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
John Thorne, Partner, Kellogg, Hansen Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3827intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/money-bail-and-pretrial-detentionFeaturing:
Marc A. Levin, Vice President, Criminal Justice Policy, Texas Public Policy Foundation
John-Michael Seibler, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13287121Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:41:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyPretrial justice policies have recently emerged as a high profile issue and have a broad impact, as some 12 million Americans are jailed every year. These policies seek to balance the constitutional presumption of innocence and the negative effects of...Featuring:
Marc A. Levin, Vice President, Criminal Justice Policy, Texas Public Policy Foundation
John-Michael Seibler, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3276criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-administrative-state-and-the-rule-of
As a result of Trump administration initiatives, the number of new federal regulations currently under development has fallen significantly from the numbers seen in recent years. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether these relief measures will create any lasting limit on the long-term expansion of the administrative state. Do rollbacks constitute reform? If not, what would real and lasting regulatory reform look like? What kind of reforms are needed to restore the constitutional rule of law essential for the preservation of liberty and the promotion of prosperity? This Teleforum brings together a noted business leader and legal scholar to share their perspectives on this critically important subject.

Featuring:
John A. Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest School of Business
Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13268190Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:35:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Trump administration has taken a number of significant steps to provide the regulatory relief that candidate Trump repeatedly promised to provide to get the economy growing again. Working with Congress, the President used the Congressional Review...
As a result of Trump administration initiatives, the number of new federal regulations currently under development has fallen significantly from the numbers seen in recent years. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether these relief measures will create any lasting limit on the long-term expansion of the administrative state. Do rollbacks constitute reform? If not, what would real and lasting regulatory reform look like? What kind of reforms are needed to restore the constitutional rule of law essential for the preservation of liberty and the promotion of prosperity? This Teleforum brings together a noted business leader and legal scholar to share their perspectives on this critically important subject.

Featuring:
John A. Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest School of Business
Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3523regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-role-of-treasury-in-national-securit_1Featuring:
Ambassador Robert M. Kimmitt, Senior International Counsel, WilmerHale

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13236359Fri, 03 Nov 2017 15:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe concept of national security has broadened considerably since the early decades of the National Security Council, which celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. Economic and financial issues have been elevated to crucial elements of our...Featuring:
Ambassador Robert M. Kimmitt, Senior International Counsel, WilmerHale

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>1775administrative law & regulatio,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-aca-and-appropriations-does-the-admi
In this Teleforum, Andrew McCarthy will argue that the Trump Administration is right about the law -- Congress has not appropriated the funds, and the Executive Branch cannot spend money Congress has appropriated. On that view, the Obama Administration violated the law by making the payments and it is wrong to blame the Trump Administration for correcting course, no matter one's policy views. Prof. Daniel Hemel, by contrast, will argue that the Trump Administration has overstated its case and that, in fact, there are serious arguments in favor of continuing the cost-sharing payments. If so, the Trump Administration's decision itself may not withstand judicial review. Please join us for this timely and important discussion.

Featuring:
Prof. Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
Moderator: Prof. Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13221025Wed, 01 Nov 2017 21:13:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast month the Trump Administration announced that it will end the Affordable Care Act's government cost-sharing payments to insurers. These payments are worth billions of dollars per year. During the Obama Administration, a federal district court...
In this Teleforum, Andrew McCarthy will argue that the Trump Administration is right about the law -- Congress has not appropriated the funds, and the Executive Branch cannot spend money Congress has appropriated. On that view, the Obama Administration violated the law by making the payments and it is wrong to blame the Trump Administration for correcting course, no matter one's policy views. Prof. Daniel Hemel, by contrast, will argue that the Trump Administration has overstated its case and that, in fact, there are serious arguments in favor of continuing the cost-sharing payments. If so, the Trump Administration's decision itself may not withstand judicial review. Please join us for this timely and important discussion.

Featuring:
Prof. Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
Moderator: Prof. Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3165administrative law & regulatio,healthcarecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/scalia-speaks-reflections-on-law-faith-aAmericans have long been inspired by Justice Scalia’s ideas, delighted by his wit, and instructed by his intelligence. He was a sought-after speaker at commencements, convocations, and events across the country. Scalia Speaks gives readers the opportunity to encounter the legendary man more fully, helping them better understand the jurisprudence that made him one of the most important justices in the Court's history and introducing them to his broader insights on faith and life.
Featuring:
Christopher J. Scalia, Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks and son of the late Justice Scalia
Edward Whelan, Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks and President, Ethics and Public Policy Center


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13220220Wed, 01 Nov 2017 19:51:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis definitive collection of beloved Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's finest speeches covers topics as varied as the law, faith, virtue, pastimes, and his heroes and friends. Featuring a foreword by longtime friend Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg...Americans have long been inspired by Justice Scalia’s ideas, delighted by his wit, and instructed by his intelligence. He was a sought-after speaker at commencements, convocations, and events across the country. Scalia Speaks gives readers the opportunity to encounter the legendary man more fully, helping them better understand the jurisprudence that made him one of the most important justices in the Court's history and introducing them to his broader insights on faith and life.
Featuring:
Christopher J. Scalia, Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks and son of the late Justice Scalia
Edward Whelan, Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks and President, Ethics and Public Policy Center


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3443constitution,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/national-security-leaksThis Teleforum will accordingly focus on the motivations of leakers and countermeasures to prevent leaking and identify a leaker after the fact. Our speakers will also discuss government considerations when deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. In addition to the strictly legal considerations, including what might distinguish lawful whistleblowing from potentially criminal conduct, we will discuss resource constraints, procedural challenges, the extent to which political considerations may come into play as to how certain leaks are countered and addressed, as well as whether the government’s response to insider threats has helped or harmed the quest to prevent leaks.
Featuring:
J. Patrick Rowan, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
Prof. Mark S. Zaid, Adjunct Faculty, Johns Hopkins University
Moderator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13123277Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:31:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyLeaks of classified or politically sensitive information have become part of the daily news cycle. With them, people like Assange, Snowden, and Manning have become household names. Some believe leakers to be patriots; others consider them traitors....This Teleforum will accordingly focus on the motivations of leakers and countermeasures to prevent leaking and identify a leaker after the fact. Our speakers will also discuss government considerations when deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. In addition to the strictly legal considerations, including what might distinguish lawful whistleblowing from potentially criminal conduct, we will discuss resource constraints, procedural challenges, the extent to which political considerations may come into play as to how certain leaks are countered and addressed, as well as whether the government’s response to insider threats has helped or harmed the quest to prevent leaks.
Featuring:
J. Patrick Rowan, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
Prof. Mark S. Zaid, Adjunct Faculty, Johns Hopkins University
Moderator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>3585security & privacycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-jesner-v-arab-bankThe petitioners are surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claim that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they can sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.
Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto will join us to discuss the oral argument and the significance of the case.
Featuring:
Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law
Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13114206Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:12:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyOral Arguments for Jesner v. Arab Bank were heard on Wednesday, October 11th 2017. The issue at the center of the case is whether the Alien Tort Statute exempts corporations from liability. The petitioners are surviving victims or families affected...The petitioners are surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claim that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they can sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.
Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto will join us to discuss the oral argument and the significance of the case.
Featuring:
Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law
Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.]]>2466federalism & separation of pow,international law & trade,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/patent-venue-fallout-from-tc-heartland-v
Featuring:

Mr. Joel B. Ard, Foster Pepper

Mr. Michael Friedland, Partner, Knobbe Martens]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13087380Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:23:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court overturned a 30 year old Federal Circuit precedent on venue in patent cases, holding that a patent defendant can be sued only in a federal district court in its...
Featuring:

Mr. Joel B. Ard, Foster Pepper

Mr. Michael Friedland, Partner, Knobbe Martens]]>3361intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-unexpected-scalia-a-conservative-jusAuthor David Dorsen and former Scalia clerk Michael Ramsey joined us to discuss Mr. Dorsen's newest book.
Featuring:
David M. Dorsen, Of Counsel, Of Counsel, Sedgwick LLP
Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of Law
Moderator: Dean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13069700Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:58:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyAntonin Scalia was one of the most important, outspoken, and controversial Justices in the past century. His endorsements of originalism, which requires deciding cases as they would have been decided in 1789, and textualism, which limits judges in...Author David Dorsen and former Scalia clerk Michael Ramsey joined us to discuss Mr. Dorsen's newest book.
Featuring:
David M. Dorsen, Of Counsel, Of Counsel, Sedgwick LLP
Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of Law
Moderator: Dean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School]]>3786constitution,jurisprudence,philosophycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-in-nationThe Supreme Court has granted review to address the venue question and oral argument is scheduled for October 11, 2017. The issue is important because it is unclear where and when regulated parties can challenge certain types of federal rules interpreting the Clean Water Act. Filing a claim in the wrong court can result in losing the right to challenge the rule at all. Under a plain reading of Act, affected parties have six years to challenge the WOTUS rule or any subsequent rule defining the agency's general jurisdiction under the Act in a federal district court. But under the EPA's reading of the Act, affected parties would have only six months to challenge the rule in a federal court of appeals. Various State, industry, and landowner groups urge the High Court to rely on a plain reading of the Act to maximize the opportunity for the regulated public to challenge rules that define the scope of the Act.
Featuring:
M. Reed Hopper, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13026952Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:43:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyMultiple legal challenges to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency’s controversial rule redefining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) raise two important questions: (1) is the rule valid and (2) which...The Supreme Court has granted review to address the venue question and oral argument is scheduled for October 11, 2017. The issue is important because it is unclear where and when regulated parties can challenge certain types of federal rules interpreting the Clean Water Act. Filing a claim in the wrong court can result in losing the right to challenge the rule at all. Under a plain reading of Act, affected parties have six years to challenge the WOTUS rule or any subsequent rule defining the agency's general jurisdiction under the Act in a federal district court. But under the EPA's reading of the Act, affected parties would have only six months to challenge the rule in a federal court of appeals. Various State, industry, and landowner groups urge the High Court to rely on a plain reading of the Act to maximize the opportunity for the regulated public to challenge rules that define the scope of the Act.
Featuring:
M. Reed Hopper, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>1596administrative law & regulatio,environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-limits-of-political-redistricting-giFeaturing:
Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Mr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13004185Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:09:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyPartisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself. In recent years, these disputes have not been limited to the political realm. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1986 opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, litigants...Featuring:
Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Mr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC]]>3553election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-district-of-columbia-v-In Class v. United States, Rodney Class pled guilty in a district court to possession of three firearms on United States Capitol grounds. He later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on grounds of constitutional error and statutory error but was affirmed as guilty under his original guilty plea. Does a guilty plea waive a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction? William Haun, an associate of the Antitrust and Litigation Groups at Shearman & Sterling LLP, joined us to discuss the oral arguments and potential impact of the cases.
Featuring:
William J. Haun, Associate, Shearman & Sterling LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/13004004Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:47:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 4, 2017, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Wesby and Class v. United States. In District of Columbia v. Wesby, law enforcement officers responded to noise complaints of a party going on in a home where the...In Class v. United States, Rodney Class pled guilty in a district court to possession of three firearms on United States Capitol grounds. He later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on grounds of constitutional error and statutory error but was affirmed as guilty under his original guilty plea. Does a guilty plea waive a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction? William Haun, an associate of the Antitrust and Litigation Groups at Shearman & Sterling LLP, joined us to discuss the oral arguments and potential impact of the cases.
Featuring:
William J. Haun, Associate, Shearman & Sterling LLP]]>2243criminal law & procedure,due processcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supreme-court-october-2017-term-previewFeaturing:
Dr. John Eastman, Professor, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor Concurrent Professor of Political Science, The Law School, University of Notre Dame
Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review
Prof. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12977318Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:39:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Friday, October 6, The Federalist Society hosted a special 90-minute Teleforum to preview the significant cases of the Supreme Court's October 2017 Term. Our experts discussed Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Christie...Featuring:
Dr. John Eastman, Professor, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor Concurrent Professor of Political Science, The Law School, University of Notre Dame
Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review
Prof. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center]]>5484criminal law & procedure,due process,election law,federalism & separation of pow,religious liberties,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/second-amendment-rights-litigation-legisFeaturing:
Alan Gura, Partner, Gura PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12967033Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:56:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe conclusion of the coming Supreme Court term will see the tenth anniversary of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court’s landmark opinion confirming that a ban on registering handguns and a requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled...Featuring:
Alan Gura, Partner, Gura PLLC]]>2127second amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/qualified-immunityFeaturing:
Prof. William Baude, Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12958325Wed, 04 Oct 2017 21:15:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyOne of the most important doctrines in civil rights litigation is qualified immunity, which holds police officers and other officials immune from suit for constitutional violations unless they act incompetently or knowingly violate the law. This...Featuring:
Prof. William Baude, Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School]]>1979civil rights,criminal law & procedure,due processcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-aumf-is-an-update-required
On September 15, the Senate rejected Sen. Rand Paul's proposal to amend the Authorization that would have given it an expiration date of 6 months. Sen. Paul and others hoped that the deadline would force Congress to act and pass legislation to redefine executive and congressional war powers. Prof. Robert Turner and Prof. Steve Vladeck joined us to discuss the AUMF and its future.

Featuring:

Prof. Robert F. Turner, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12955199Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:57:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Authorization for the Use of Military Force was passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. This authorization is still used today to justify military actions taken by the Trump administration against ISIS and other terrorist organizations around...
On September 15, the Senate rejected Sen. Rand Paul's proposal to amend the Authorization that would have given it an expiration date of 6 months. Sen. Paul and others hoped that the deadline would force Congress to act and pass legislation to redefine executive and congressional war powers. Prof. Robert Turner and Prof. Steve Vladeck joined us to discuss the AUMF and its future.

Featuring:

Prof. Robert F. Turner, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law]]>3538foreign policy,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-national-labor-relationThe National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has taken the position that class action waivers, even when contained within FAA-governed arbitration agreements, are unenforceable because they violate employees’ rights to engage in protected, concerted activity under the NLRA. Two of the lower court decisions, the Seventh Circuit’s Lewis v. Epic Systems, 823 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), and the Ninth Circuit’s Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), have adopted the NLRB’s position. In the third case, Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit rejected the NLRB’s position and held that arbitration agreements, including class action waivers, must be enforced according to their terms under the FAA, notwithstanding the NLRB’s interpretation of the NLRA.
On October 2nd, Edward Berbarie of Littler Mendelson attended the Supreme Court Oral Argument and provided his commentary and insights, including the issues that were focused upon, the questions that were asked and how they were addressed by the parties, and his predictions as to how the Court will rule.
Featuring:
Edward F. Berbarie, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12948126Tue, 03 Oct 2017 18:09:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyEmployers across the country are anxiously awaiting a ruling from the United States Supreme Court regarding the enforceability of express waivers of an employee’s right to bring or participate in a class or collective action. In three cases set...The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has taken the position that class action waivers, even when contained within FAA-governed arbitration agreements, are unenforceable because they violate employees’ rights to engage in protected, concerted activity under the NLRA. Two of the lower court decisions, the Seventh Circuit’s Lewis v. Epic Systems, 823 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), and the Ninth Circuit’s Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), have adopted the NLRB’s position. In the third case, Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit rejected the NLRB’s position and held that arbitration agreements, including class action waivers, must be enforced according to their terms under the FAA, notwithstanding the NLRB’s interpretation of the NLRA.
On October 2nd, Edward Berbarie of Littler Mendelson attended the Supreme Court Oral Argument and provided his commentary and insights, including the issues that were focused upon, the questions that were asked and how they were addressed by the parties, and his predictions as to how the Court will rule.
Featuring:
Edward F. Berbarie, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>2020labor & employment law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ethics-cle-teleforum-2017-recent-developThe following topics will be discussed:
Unauthorized Practice of Law and Its Growing Implications for Lawyering
We will examine some of the recent developments in UPL and its application to the delivery of legal services. New business structures and services are beginning to test the old legal concepts. And, as some recent cases illustrate, the ABA’s modification of Model Rule 5.5 may now be outdated.
Recent Developments in Attorneys’ Fees
As practice continues to evolve, the ABA, the state bars, and some courts have provided more guidance on lawyer issues relating to attorneys’ fees. In some cases, lawyers are using creative language to protect their rights and in other cases, client protection remains an important interest.
A Sampling of Ethical Pitfalls in the Electronic Age
Many seminars and much advertising tout the virtues of establishing or enhancing a lawyer or a firm's online presence and technical tools. Increasing business, facilitating lawyer-client communications, and better managing litigation are only a few of the benefits that can result. But there is a dark side to the adoption of Electronic Age technology as well. Chief among the dangers is the unauthorized disclosure of client confidences, through inadvertence or third party mischief, but that hardly exhausts the dangers. Recent cases and ethics opinions reveal an array of other difficulties that can arise.
Advertising
As an increasing number of American lawyers handle more matters that touch on more than one state, the rules governing lawyer advertising in various formats have become less and less uniform across state lines. Every state has rules that are based on Part 7 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, but almost every state made detailed and widely varying amendments before local adoption. The ABA has begun formal consideration of a proposal developed by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) that would greatly simplify the Model Rules provisions, while eliminating most regulations that speak to matters of taste rather misrepresentation or other harms to clients.
Featuring:
Prof. W. William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University & President, The William Hodes Law Firm
Prof. John S. Dzienkowski, Professor of Law & Dean John F. Sutton, Jr. Chair in Lawyering and the Legal Process, Texas Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12940858Mon, 02 Oct 2017 21:21:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyOur panel of three experts in legal and judicial ethics will discuss several recent cases and regulatory developments in the field, with an eye towards translating these developments into practical wisdom about their likely impact on law practice in...The following topics will be discussed:
Unauthorized Practice of Law and Its Growing Implications for Lawyering
We will examine some of the recent developments in UPL and its application to the delivery of legal services. New business structures and services are beginning to test the old legal concepts. And, as some recent cases illustrate, the ABA’s modification of Model Rule 5.5 may now be outdated.
Recent Developments in Attorneys’ Fees
As practice continues to evolve, the ABA, the state bars, and some courts have provided more guidance on lawyer issues relating to attorneys’ fees. In some cases, lawyers are using creative language to protect their rights and in other cases, client protection remains an important interest.
A Sampling of Ethical Pitfalls in the Electronic Age
Many seminars and much advertising tout the virtues of establishing or enhancing a lawyer or a firm's online presence and technical tools. Increasing business, facilitating lawyer-client communications, and better managing litigation are only a few of the benefits that can result. But there is a dark side to the adoption of Electronic Age technology as well. Chief among the dangers is the unauthorized disclosure of client confidences, through inadvertence or third party mischief, but that hardly exhausts the dangers. Recent cases and ethics opinions reveal an array of other difficulties that can arise.
Advertising
As an increasing number of American lawyers handle more matters that touch on more than one state, the rules governing lawyer advertising in various formats have become less and less uniform across state lines. Every state has rules that are based on Part 7 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, but almost every state made detailed and widely varying amendments before local adoption. The ABA has begun formal consideration of a proposal developed by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) that would greatly simplify the Model Rules provisions, while eliminating most regulations that speak to matters of taste rather misrepresentation or other harms to clients.
Featuring:
Prof. W. William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University & President, The William Hodes Law Firm
Prof. John S. Dzienkowski, Professor of Law & Dean John F. Sutton, Jr. Chair in Lawyering and the Legal Process, Texas Law]]>3873professional responsibility &cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/judicial-disability-can-the-federal-courThe Constitution establishes the judicial power in Article III and provides, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” The constitutional remedy for bad behavior is impeachment. In 1980, though, Congress enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which provides authority to a special committee to “conduct an investigation as extensive as it considers necessary.” 28 U.S.C § 353(c).
As one commentator has noted, “The investigation ... appears to move into uncharted territory for disciplinary cases.” Does a Circuit Judicial Council have the authority to require a federal judge to submit to psychological testing? If so, what showing is necessary? Simple cantankerousness can’t be enough, but where is the line between being a curmudgeon and being mentally ill? Do the federal courts have a mechanism for figuring that out?
Featuring: Prof. Charles Gardner Geyh, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Prof. Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law; Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Prof. Ronald Rotunda, Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12903040Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn August 14, 2017, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued a decision in which, among other things, it affirmed the order of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council directing a federal judge...The Constitution establishes the judicial power in Article III and provides, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” The constitutional remedy for bad behavior is impeachment. In 1980, though, Congress enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which provides authority to a special committee to “conduct an investigation as extensive as it considers necessary.” 28 U.S.C § 353(c).
As one commentator has noted, “The investigation ... appears to move into uncharted territory for disciplinary cases.” Does a Circuit Judicial Council have the authority to require a federal judge to submit to psychological testing? If so, what showing is necessary? Simple cantankerousness can’t be enough, but where is the line between being a curmudgeon and being mentally ill? Do the federal courts have a mechanism for figuring that out?
Featuring: Prof. Charles Gardner Geyh, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Prof. Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law; Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Prof. Ronald Rotunda, Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law]]>3917due process,professional responsibility &cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/travel-moratorium-on-the-front-page-agaiFeaturing:
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12903012Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:15:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the weekend of September 23, the White House announced it is extending and expanding the travel moratorium, which was set to expire, to eight countries. Three nations - Chad, North Korea and Venezuela - were added, while Sudan was taken off the...Featuring:
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston]]>2858federalism,foreign policy,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/striking-power-podcastVince Vitkowsky moderated a discussion with the authors of Striking Power about these issues and others.
Featuring:

Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center
Moderator: Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Partner, Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/12902426Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:41:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyThreats to international peace and security include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rogue nations, and international terrorism. In Striking Power, Professor Jeremy Rabkin and Professor John Yoo argue that the United States must...Vince Vitkowsky moderated a discussion with the authors of Striking Power about these issues and others.
Featuring:

Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center
Moderator: Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Partner, Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP]]>3680international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-european-commission-s-google-decisiohttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170921_TheEuropeanCommissionsGoogleDecisionSearchingforAnswer92117.mp3Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:26:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 27, the European Commission issued the long awaited opinion in its competition case against Google. The Commission held that Google had abused its dominant position as an Internet search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service...4228cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-sanctuary-cities-in-thhttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170922_LitigationUpdateSanctuaryCitiesintheDistrictCourt92117.mp3Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:28:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Friday, September 15 Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s enforcement of a new Justice Department requirement tied to federal funding. The new Byrne Justice...2743cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/janus-in-the-courthttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170919_JanusintheCourt91917.mp3Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:25:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1977 in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that public employees, including school teachers, could legally be required to pay a fee if they refuse to join a public-sector union. According to the Detroit Board of Education,...1159cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/politics-and-federal-antitrust-enforcemehttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170915_PoliticsandFederalAntitrustEnforcement91517.mp3Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:23:22 +0000The Federalist SocietySome antitrust lawyers often say the federal government’s decisions about which mergers to challenge, which monopolists to rein in, and which price-fixers to send to jail are relatively consistent regardless of who occupies the White House. But has...2845cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/law-firm-preferenceshttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170915_LawFirmPreferences91517.mp3Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:21:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyMajor American corporations are pressuring their outside law firms to meet diversity goals both firm-wide and in the legal teams assigned to the company’s work. For example, Facebook announced this year that the law firm teams working on its matters...3291cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/antitrust-implications-of-pharmaceuticalhttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170914_AntitrustImplicationsofPharmaceuticalPricingfromMartinShkrelitoEpiPen91417.mp3Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:20:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyFrom Martin Shkreli to the Epipen, decisions about pharmaceutical pricing and distribution have been very much in the news of late. Much of the discussion centers on whether or not it is immoral to charge high prices. The question remains, however,...3178cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/patent-law-and-antitrusthttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170908_PatentLawandAntitrust9817.mp3Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:16:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent developments in US patent law, particularly the Americans Invents Act (AIA) and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on patent-eligible subject matter, have raised questions of whether, and to what extent, the Constitutional directive to promote...3929cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-dol-overtime-rulehttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170907_CourthouseStepsDOLOvertimeRule9717.mp3Thu, 07 Sep 2017 17:14:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, August 31, Judge Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas invalidated the Department of Labor’s Overtime Rule, which would have increased the minimum salary level for overtime-exempt employees from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $913...3193cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/warning-to-corporate-counsel-if-state-aghttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170831_WarningtoCorporateCounsel83117.mp3Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:11:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyNation-states have long fought wars for control of oil. In a novel development, American states are now fighting a war over control of oil—not with one state attempting to take oil from another, but with some states attempting to deny its use to other...2659cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-persecution-and-genocide-of-christiahttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170824_GenocideintheMiddleEast81817.mp3Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:09:35 +0000The Federalist SocietySince the summer of 2014, ISIS has been waging a blitz through Iraq's Nineveh province, murdering and displacing Iraqi Christians and others. The European Union, Britain, and the U.S. have labeled the campaign to eradicate Christianity from Iraq as...3597cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-third-party-doctrine-and-carpenter-vhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170818_ThirdPartyDoctrine2.mp3Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:42:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyAccording to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]” But how does that provision apply to the vast troves of...4059cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/patents-and-antitrust-worldwidehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/201708171_PatentsandAntitrustWorldwide81717.mp3Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:41:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe smartphone patent wars have caused a great deal of litigation and consternation. As global patent litigation has accelerated, an international arms race characterized by competing alliances and massive portfolio acquisitions ensued. One recurring...3432cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/benefit-cost-analysis-and-the-courtshttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170816_BenefitCostAnalysisandtheCourts81617.mp3Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:38:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis call highlighted recent trends in how the courts have considered benefit-cost analysis when reviewing regulations under various statutes. Our experts examined the pros and cons of greater judicial review of regulatory analysis and the effect of...2957cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ali-civil-justice-updatehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170810_ALICivilJusticeUpdate81017.mp3Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:15:09 +0000The Federalist SocietySince 1923, the American Law Institute has exercised more influence on judge-made common law than any other private institution. The ALI’s most influential work has come in the form of periodic publications known as Restatements of the Law. These...2146cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-ut-austin-faces-lawsuihttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170810_UTRaceConsciousAdmissions81017.mp3Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:13:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn July 2017, Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit membership organization comprised of over 21,000 students, parents, and others, filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against the University of Texas at Austin. The organization alleges that UT’s...2637cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ransomware-cybercrime-victims-and-law-enhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170809_RansomwareCybercrimeVictimsandLawEnforcement8917.mp3Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:10:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent headlines make clear the threat posed by cyber criminals, especially those that deploy so-called ransomware. Although federal law enforcement has urged victims to report cyber incidents and generally recommends that victims not give in to a...3848cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-future-of-fintech-regulationhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170807_TheFutureofFintechRegulation8717.mp3Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:06:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyTechnology is having a significant impact on how financial services are being delivered. The rise of non-bank financial firms using the internet as a means of distribution is calling into question the divide between state and federal regulation and...3863cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fiduciary-rule-updatehttps://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170904_FiduciaryRuleUpdate9417.mp3Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:12:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 8, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) published the Fiduciary Rule, which greatly expanded the universe of entities and persons that DOL deems to be fiduciaries with respect to retirement plans under the Employment Retirement Income Security...2631cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/dol-overtime-updatehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170728_DOLOvertimeUpdate72817.mp3Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:00:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Wednesday, the Department of Labor published a Request for Information seeking comments from the public on the Obama Administration’s 2016 changes to the overtime exemption regulations which would have required payment of overtime to any employee...2495cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/lee-v-us-effectiveness-of-counselhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170727_Leev.USEffectivenessofCounselJuly272017.mp3Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:27:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyJae Lee lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident since 1982. In 2009, he was arrested for possession of ecstasy and intent to distribute. Lee’s counsel advised him to accept a guilty plea because of the compelling case against him,...3050cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/global-politics-of-internet-regulation-ahttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170726_GlobalPoliticsofInternetRegulationActorsandTrajectory72617.mp3Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:25:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent years, the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union has become an arena where governments promote rival visions of the future of the organization and, more importantly, how the Internet itself should be governed. These debates...3308cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/are-existing-civil-rights-policies-basedhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170725_AreExistingCivilRightsPoliciesBasedonaStatisticalUnderstandingThatIstheOppositeofReality72517.mp3Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:36:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor decades, the DOJ’s civil rights enforcement policies regarding lending, school discipline, and criminal justice have been premised on the belief that relaxing standards and otherwise reducing the frequency of adverse outcomes will reduce...3657cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/immigration-moratorium-back-in-the-courthttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170725_ImmigrationMoratoriumBackintheCourt72517.mp3Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:34:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyEighteen days after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and stay applications were granted in part, on July 14, 2017, Judge Watson of the District Court of Hawaii ruled that grandparents,...3124cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/antitrust-in-the-modern-erahttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170724_AntitrustintheModernEra72417.mp3Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:33:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith a change in administration, businesses and consumers alike are searching the tea leaves for indications about how new policy setters will analyze market power, mergers and acquisitions. Will economic analysis play a greater or lesser role? Will...3250cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/state-efforts-to-rein-in-ada-americans-whttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170724_StateEffortstoReinInADAAmericanswithDisabilitiesActLawsuits72417.mp3Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:31:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyJuly 26th will mark the 26th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enacted in 1990 to prohibit discrimination of the disabled and provide disability access to public accommodations nationwide, it has also been used throughout the years...2553cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/reauthorization-of-section-702http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170719_ReauthorizationofSection70271917.mp3Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:46:48 +0000The Federalist SocietySection 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is up for reauthorization in 2017. An earlier version of the program was instituted after 9/11 by President George W. Bush. In 2007, Congress adopted the Protect America Act and one year...3781cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/eminent-domain-a-comparative-perspectivehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170718_EminentDomainAComparativePerspectivebyProfessorIlyaSominetal.71817.mp3Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:42:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe taking of private property for development projects has caused controversy in many nations, where it has often been used to benefit powerful interests at the expense of the general public. In their recent book, Eminent Domain: A Comparative...3601cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-layered-model-of-adjudication-and-enhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170714_TheLayeredModelofAdjudicationandEnforcementofNetNeutralitywiththeFTCDOJandStateAGs71417.mp3Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:16:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyA number of regulatory advocates assert that Title II of the Communications Act, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, is the only way to protect net neutrality. Research by Roslyn Layton, PhD, who has studied net neutrality in 50...3526cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/persuader-rule-updatehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170712_PersuaderRuleUpdate.mp3Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:14:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 24, 2016 the DOL’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) issued the so-called “persuader rule” that would greatly inhibit the ability of businesses to rely on labor experts and the ability of employers to obtain legal advice in...2147cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/compensation-for-the-wrongfully-imprisonhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170711_CompensationfortheWrongfullyImprisoned71117.mp3Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:11:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent years, there have been a growing number of cases where people have been freed from prison after they were exonerated or their convictions were overturned. Some states have statutes that provide compensation under some circumstances to such...2961cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/turkey-in-nato
Turkey’s President Erdogan has secured authoritarian rule through constitutional restructuring. He does not tolerate dissent and has arrested journalists, prosecutors, judges, military officials, police, academics and civil servants. Turkey would arguably not qualify to join NATO today. Turkey is seeking common cause with Russia and Iran. Erdogan has called America’s Kurdish allies in Syria “terrorists” and launched air strikes against them. NATO has never expelled a member state. When are the risks to NATO countries’ security and intelligence compelling enough to consider expelling Turkey? Are other, lesser sanctions an option? What would be the mechanism to accomplish this?

Featuring:

-- Alan Makovsky, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
-- Blaise Misztal, Director of National Security, Bipartisan Policy Center]]>http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170707_TurkeyinNATO7717.mp3Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:01:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyInternational & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Turkey’s President Erdogan has secured authoritarian rule through constitutional restructuring. He does not tolerate dissent and has arrested journalists, prosecutors, judges, military...
Turkey’s President Erdogan has secured authoritarian rule through constitutional restructuring. He does not tolerate dissent and has arrested journalists, prosecutors, judges, military officials, police, academics and civil servants. Turkey would arguably not qualify to join NATO today. Turkey is seeking common cause with Russia and Iran. Erdogan has called America’s Kurdish allies in Syria “terrorists” and launched air strikes against them. NATO has never expelled a member state. When are the risks to NATO countries’ security and intelligence compelling enough to consider expelling Turkey? Are other, lesser sanctions an option? What would be the mechanism to accomplish this?

Featuring:

-- Alan Makovsky, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
-- Blaise Misztal, Director of National Security, Bipartisan Policy Center]]>3642cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-maslenjak-v-united-stathttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170707_CourthouseStepsMaslenjakv.UnitedStatesUpdate7717.mp3Fri, 07 Jul 2017 17:58:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyAt the close of the Bosnian civil war, Divna Maslenjak sought refuge for herself and her family in the U.S. due to fear of persecution regarding their Serbian identity in modern-day Bosnia and the threat of reprisal against her husband, who she...1644cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ziglar-v-abbasi-decided-are-government-ohttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170707_ZiglarvAbbasiDecidedAreGovernmentOfficialsLiableforDamages7717.mp3Fri, 07 Jul 2017 17:56:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyZiglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law...1165cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/improving-the-use-of-science-in-regulatihttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/201707061_ImprovingtheUseofScienceinRegulation7617.mp3Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:54:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyRegulations intended to address public health and environmental risks depend heavily on scientific information. Yet, they are often the subject of heated debate, involving accusations of “politicized science,” “advocacy science,” and “junk science.”...2864cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-hernandez-v-mesa-decidehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170629_CourthouseStepsHernandezvMesaDecided62917.mp3Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:51:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Hernandez v. Mesa to the Fifth Circuit. The case involved a cross-border shooting and a Bivens claim. -- In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his...1607cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-murr-v-wisconsin-decidehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170628_CourthouseStepsMurrvWisconsinDecided62817.mp3Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:53:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 23, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin. This is a regulatory takings case which addressed the question: should two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels be combined, as described in Penn Central...3207cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-california-public-emplohttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170628_CourthouseStepsCaliforniaPublicEmployeesRetirementSystemvANZSecurities62817.mp3Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:51:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities. Between July 2007 and January 2008, Lehman Brothers raised over $31 billion through debt offerings. California Public...2581cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-trinity-lutheran-churchhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170628_CourthouseStepsTrinityLutheranChurchofColumbiaInc.v.ComerDecided62817.mp3Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:49:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denied a Learning Center run by Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. (Trinity) federal funding to refurbish children’s playgrounds on the grounds of religious affiliation. The DNR offers...3522cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/immigration-moratorium-in-the-supreme-cohttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/201706271_ImmigrationMoratoriumintheSupremeCourt62717.mp3Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:47:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, June 26, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and stay applications were granted in part. The case is based on the January 21 Executive Order No. 13780, “Protecting the nation from...3939cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-sessions-v-morales-santhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170627_CourthouseStepsSessionsvMoralesSantanaUpdate42717.mp3Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:30:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana. Morales-Santana’s father was born in Puerto Rico but acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917 under the Jones Act of Puerto Rico. Morales-Santana was born in 1962 in the...1905cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-two-cases-matal-v-tam-aMr. Michael R. Huston, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.]]>http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/201706211_CourthouseStepsTwoCasesMatalvTamandPackinghamvNorthCarolina62117.mp3Mon, 26 Jun 2017 20:25:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Court has ruled today in two important cases, Matal v. Tam (aka "The Slants" copyright case) and Packingham v. North Carolina, which concerns a North Carolina law that restricts the access of convicted sex offenders to “commercial social...Mr. Michael R. Huston, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.]]>3191cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/chevrons-foundation-congressional-delegahttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170623_ChevronsFoundationCongressionalDelegationofInterpretivePrimacy62317.mp3Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:28:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis Teleforum explores the foundation for Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretation, and the implications of that foundation. In particular, it considers whether the Supreme Court’s justification of Chevron as deriving from an implicit...3492cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-sandoz-inc-v-amgen-inchttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170620_CourthouseStepsSandozIncvAmgenInc.62017.mp3Tue, 20 Jun 2017 20:23:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a decision likely to shape not only future biosimilar litigation but the biosimilar industry generally, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 2017 handed down its much-anticipated ruling in Amgen v. Sandoz. -- In the first case interpreting the...2278cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/microsoft-v-baker-decidedhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170619_MicrosoftvBakerDecided61917.mp3Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:21:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyMicrosoft v. Baker involved a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc would come loose and scratch the internal components of the device,...1901cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/legislating-clemencyhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170616_LegislatingClemency61617.mp3Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:20:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe enactment of lengthy no-parole sentences and the atrophy of other statutory early release mechanisms has placed unusual demands on the clemency mechanism in recent years, notably in the federal system. Similarly, an increase in the number and...3348cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/federal-reserve-accountability-and-the-chttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170615_FederalReserveAccountabilityandtheCHOICEAct61517.mp3Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:57:39 +0000The Federalist Societyo whom is the Federal Reserve accountable? Does the Fed's insistence on its "independence" mean it thinks the answer is: To no one? Who should oversee the results, successful or unsuccessful, of the Fed's actions? One answer was given by a former...3393cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/national-intelligence-reformhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170614_NationalIntelligenceReform61417.mp3Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:55:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyDuring the presidential campaign, there were calls for changes to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a federal agency created in response to the events of 9/11 to ensure that the seventeen organizations that make up the...3419cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-esquivel-santana-v-sesshttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170614_CourthouseStepsEsquivelSantanavSessionsUpdate61417.mp3Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:54:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was used as grounds for the deportation of Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a permanent resident admitted to the U.S. in 2000, after he pled guilty to a California statute in 2009, making sexual intercourse with a...1513cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-advocate-health-care-v-http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170607_CourthouseStepsAdvocateHealthCarev.StapletonDecided6717.wavWed, 07 Jun 2017 20:41:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyAdvocate Health Care v. Stapleton is a combination of three cases, Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, St. Peter’s Healthcare v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, that confront the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as it...1151cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-bnsf-railway-co-v-tyrrehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170607_CourthouseStepsBNSFRailwayCo.v.Tyrrell6717.wavWed, 07 Jun 2017 20:39:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Daimler AG v Bauman that, as a general matter, companies could only be sued in the state in which they are headquartered and incorporated or the plaintiff is injured. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in...1686cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-united-states-telecom-http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170606_LitigationUpdateUnitedStatesTelecomAssociationvFederalCommunicationsCommission6517.mp3Tue, 06 Jun 2017 21:35:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 1, the D.C. Circuit denied petitions for en banc review of United States Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission. The petitioners challenge the FCC’s Open Internet Order, in which the FCC established Internet access as a...3263cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/hively-v-ivy-tech-community-collegehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170602_HivelyvIvyTechCommunityCollege6217.mp3Fri, 02 Jun 2017 21:33:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit handed down a divided en banc opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, opening a circuit split on how to interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based...3453cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-d-c-circuit-en-banc-arghttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170601_CourthouseStepsD.C.CircuitEnBancArgument53117.mp3Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:31:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe D.C. Circuit heard a rare doubleheader of en banc arguments on major structural separation of powers questions on May 24. -- First up was Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. SEC, which presented the question whether Administrative Law Judges at...3280cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-cooper-v-harris-redistrhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170531_CourthouseStepsCoopervHarrisRedistrictingUpdate53117.mp3Wed, 31 May 2017 21:29:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 22, the Supreme Court threw out two North Carolina congressional districts as discriminatory. State legislatures face confusion over how to redistrict without violating either the Voting Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th...3108cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-decision-tc-heartland-lhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170526_CourthouseStepsDecisionTCHeartlandLLCv.KraftFoodsGroupBrandsLLC52617.mp3Fri, 26 May 2017 15:29:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion in the closely-watched TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case. The patent venue statute provides that a domestic corporation may be sued for patent infringement...3985cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/update-in-re-fosamax-alendronate-sodium-http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170531_UpdateInreFosamaxAlendronateSodiumProductsLiabilityLitigation53117.mp3Thu, 25 May 2017 15:22:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn a recent decision, the Third Circuit held that hundreds of state-law claims alleging that bone fractures were caused by an osteoporosis medication were not preempted by federal law. While defendants argued, and the district court agreed, that the...1602cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/legal-challenge-to-the-presidents-executhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170519_LegalChallengetothePresidentsExecutiveOrderonReducingRegulationandControllingRegulatoryCosts51917.mp3Fri, 19 May 2017 15:21:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. The Executive Order instructs federal agencies to identify two existing regulations for repeal for each new regulation...2585cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/spokeo-v-robins-one-year-laterhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170518_Spokeov.RobinsOneYearLater51817.mp3Thu, 18 May 2017 15:19:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen is an alleged injury “concrete and particularized” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution? Spokeo, a self-proclaimed “online people search” site, was sued by Thomas Robins for publishing false information about him, which he claimed damaged...3744cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-political-spectrum-the-tumultuous-lihttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170512_ThePoliticalSpectrumTheTumultuousLiberationofWirelessTechnologyfromHerbertHoovetotheSmartphone51217.wavFri, 12 May 2017 20:59:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyPopular legend has it that before the Federal Radio Commission was established in 1927, the radio spectrum was in chaos, with broadcasting stations blasting powerful signals to drown out rivals. In this fascinating and entertaining history, Prof....2987cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/president-trumps-religious-liberties-exehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170511_PresidentTrumpsReligiousLibertiesExecutiveOrder51117.mp3Thu, 11 May 2017 20:54:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 4, President Trump signed a Religious Liberty Executive Order relaxing IRS enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which bans tax-exempt organizations like churches from political speech and activities. The “Promoting Free Speech and Religious...3339cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-exxon-investigationhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170510_LitigationUpdateExxonInvestigation51017.mp3Wed, 10 May 2017 20:52:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 20th, eleven state Attorneys General filed a joint amicus brief in support of ExxonMobil and its request to stop an investigation into allegations of fraud and deceptive practices surrounding the relationship between fossil fuels and climate...2118cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-false-claims-act-enforcement-of-the-http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170505_TheFalseClaimsActEnforcementoftheRegulatoryStateTimeforAChange5517.mp3Fri, 05 May 2017 20:50:13 +0000The Federalist SocietySince the Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision in Universal Health Services, Inc., v. United States ex rel Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), there has been much discussion about whether the Court’s reformulation of the standards applicable to implied...3609cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/hillbilly-elegyhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170504_HillbillyElegy5417.mp3Thu, 04 May 2017 15:41:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyHillbilly Elegy is a passionate and personal analysis of a culture in crisis—that of white working-class Americans. The decline of this group has never before been written about as searingly from the inside. J. D. Vance tells the story of what a...3858cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-amgen-inc-v-sandoz-inchttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170428_CourthouseStepsAmgenIncvSandozInc42817.mp3Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:38:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. § 262) created an abbreviated pathway for FDA approval of biological products determined to be “biosimilar” to a reference product. The Act outlines a patent resolution and...1593cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-trinity-lutheran-church_1http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170421_CourthouseStepsTrinityLutheranChurchofColumbiav.Comer42117.mp3Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:44:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denied a Learning Center run by Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. (Trinity) federal funding to refurbish children’s playgrounds on the grounds of religious affiliation. The DNR offers...3448cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-updhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170419_ConsumerFinancialProtectionBureauUpdateApril201741917.mp3Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:42:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyMembers of the Federalist Society’s Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Executive Committee provided an update on recent important activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The call will cover many interesting topics...3217cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/telecommunications-law-in-the-new-adminihttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170418_TelecommunicationsLawintheNewAdministration41817.mp3Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:40:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn late March, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to reverse the FCC’s controversial Broadband ISP Privacy Order. The FCC had overwritten the FTC’s prior regulation of ISP privacy, after President Obama took to YouTube following the 2014...3503cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-davis-v-guamhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170413_LitigationUpdateDavisv.Guam41317.mp3Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:31:35 +0000The Federalist Societyn March 8, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam struck down a Guam law that permitted only those who meet the definition of “Native Inhabitants of Guam” to vote in a future status plebiscite. This decision has been met with...2875cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/making-the-administrative-state-more-acchttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170411_MakingtheAdministrativeStateMoreAccountable41117.mp3Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:29:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow might America reform the modern administrative state—not only to limit its power, but to restore its constitutional accountability to Congress, the President, and the courts? That is the subject of a recent report by National Affairs, on policy...3550cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/can-you-recruit-on-campushttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170410_CanYouRecruitonCampus41017.mp3Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:28:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyAre college job fairs and recruiting doomed as discriminatory activities? In February, a District Court in California ruled that job applicants could maintain a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) challenging...3586cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/lucas-v-south-carolina-coastal-council-ahttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170407_LucasvSouthCarolinaCoastalCouncilat254717.mp3Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:26:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis spring marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. In Lucas, a 5-4 Court majority held that a state law can effect a "regulatory taking" and trigger inverse condemnation...3647cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-fashionable-copyright-lhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170405_CourthouseStepsFashionableCopyrightLawintheU.S.SupremeCourt4517.mp3Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:23:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast Wednesday the Supreme Court handed down a 6-2 opinion resolving a long mystifying test of when a feature of a useful article may be protected by copyright law. Hewing closely to the text of the Copyright Act, the opinion, authored by Justice...2523cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/all-falling-faiths-reflections-on-the-prhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170404_AllFallingFaithsReflectionsonthePromiseandFailureofthe1960s4417.mp3Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:21:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this warm and intimate memoir, Judge Wilkinson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, delivers a chilling message. The 1960s inflicted enormous damage on our country; even at this very hour we see the decade’s imprint in so...3716cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-saint-peter-s-healthcarhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170331_CourthouseStepsSaintPetersHealthcareSystemvKaplan3317.mp3Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:33:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis case is a combination of three cases, Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, St. Peter’s Healthcare v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, that confront the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as it applies to churches and...2347cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-tc-heartland-v-kraft-fohttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170329_CourthouseStepsTCHeartlandvKraftFoods32917.mp3Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:42:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe question presented in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC is seemingly straightforward: Does the statute governing venue generally, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), supplement the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)? In particular, the...3524cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/deep-pocket-jurisprudence-and-meaningfulhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170328_DeepPocketJurisprudenceandMeaningfulCivilJusticeReform32817.mp3Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:11:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis Teleforum discussed what Victor Schwartz has labelled "Deep-Pocket Jurisprudence™." According to Mr. Schwartz, this occurs when state appellate courts expand tort law to include an innocent defendant because the wrongdoer is "judgment proof" or...2583cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/pena-rodriguez-v-colorado-post-decision-http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170324_PenaRodriguezvColoradoPostDecisionRecap32417.mp3Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:09:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court released its 5-3 decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, reveresed and remanded the case holding that when there is a juror's clear statement that he or she relied...2104cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-microsoft-v-bakerhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170323_CourthouseStepsMicrosoftvBaker32317.mp3Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:04:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Microsoft v. Baker. The case involves a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc...1789cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-impression-products-v-lhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170322_CourthouseStepsImpressionProductsvLexmarkInternationalandtheLawofPatentExhaustion32217.mp3Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:02:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyMay a patent owner use contracts to prohibit any resale or reuse of its patented products beyond the initial purchaser? OnTuesday, March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, which raises...1703cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-supreme-court-oral-arguhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170322_CourthouseStepsSupremeCourtOralArgumentsinMurrvWisconsin32217.mp3Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:58:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Murr v. Wisconsin. This is a regulatory takings case which addresses the question: should two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels be combined, as described in Penn Central...2267cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-role-of-white-house-counselhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170317_RoleofWhiteHouseCounsel31717.mp3Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:56:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent weeks, there has been a flurry of editorials on the proper role of the White House Counsel, driven by criticism of White House Counsel Donald McGahn. After the rollout of President Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, some, like Jack...3570cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/accelerating-financial-inclusion-and-inchttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170317_AcceleratingFinancialInclusionandInclusiveGrowth31717.mp3Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:54:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyToday, approximately two billion people lack access to financial services. Because of their exclusive reliance on cash, these individuals operate in a “shadow economy,” are subject to greater criminal activity, higher transaction costs, and do not...2795cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/foreign-government-partnershipshttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170315_ForeignGovernmentPartnerships31517.mp3Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:51:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyHistorically, protecting national security meant protecting one’s own citizens and sovereign territory from the threats or opposing interests of other nation-states. The concept has broadened, however, as transnational terrorists act with...3227cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/unwarranted-policing-without-permission-http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170315_UnwarrantedPolicingWithoutPermissionbyBarryFriedman31517.mp3Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:48:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June 2013, documents leaked by Edward Snowden sparked widespread debate about secret government surveillance of Americans. Just over a year later, the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, set off protests and triggered...3904cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/impression-products-v-lexmark-internatiohttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170309_ImpressionProductsvLexmarkInternationalandtheLawofPatentExhaustion3917.mp3Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:51:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society will host a teleforum discussion of Impression Products v. Lexmark International, which is scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court March 21, 2017. At issue in the case is whether a patent owner may use a combination of...3617cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-hernandez-v-mesahttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170308_CourthouseStepsHernandezvMesa3817.mp3Wed, 08 Mar 2017 18:49:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 21, the Supreme Court heard argument in Hernandez v. Mesa. In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his friends were playing along a concrete structure on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. When...1588cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/hardie-v-ncaa-can-the-ncaa-bar-convictedhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170307_HardievNCAACantheNCAABarConvictedFelonsfromCoachinginNCAACertifiedRecruitingTournaments3717.mp3Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:44:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyHardie v. NCAA is a recently argued case from the Ninth Circuit. It involves a NCAA ban on all convicted felons from coaching in NCAA-certified tournaments held for recruiting student-athletes to NCAA Division I schools. The key question is whether...3312cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/fairness-in-class-litigation-acthttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170403_FairnessinClassLitigationAct4317.mp3Fri, 03 Mar 2017 15:34:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Saturday, March 11 the House passed the Fairness in Class Litigation Act by a vote of 220-201. The stated purpose of the Act is to “(1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and multidistrict litigation plaintiffs; (2) diminish abuses...3664cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/freddie-fannie-shareholder-litigation-uphttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170302_FreddieandFannieShareholderLitigationUpdate3217.mp3Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:35:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyDuring the 2008 financial crisis, Congress provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with billions of dollars in emergency funds to keep them afloat, supplemented by the investments of private investors who bet that these entities would return to...3152cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-packingham-v-north-carohttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170302_CourthouseStepsPackinghamvNorthCarolina3217.mp3Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:34:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment bars a state from banning citizens from accessing social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A North Carolina state makes it a felony for any person on the...1485cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/travel-moratorium-executive-orderhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170301_TravelMoratoriumExecutiveOrder3117.mp3Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:31:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 21, President Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries:...3974cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/public-private-partnerships-in-cybersecuhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/201702281_PublicPrivatePartnershipsinCybersecurityandTechnology22817.mp3Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:29:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe second Teleforum in our Security Partnership Series will examine the complex mechanics and ethics of cyber partnerships and many important questions. Should government agencies be enlisting private security firms to help prevent hacking into their...3003cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/the-congressional-review-act-s-rediscovehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170227_TheCongressionalReviewActsRediscoveryandHiddenUses22717.mp3Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:27:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1996, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Before an executive agency rule—broadly defined to include agency guidance documents—can take effect, the CRA requires the agency to submit it to Congress and the Government Accountability...3660cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/in-re-walgreen-co-stockholder-litigationhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170224_InReWalgreenCo.StockholderLitigationUpdate22417.mp3Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:25:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyAccording to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, over 97% of mergers and acquisitions result in "strike suits," litigation seeking to enjoin a merger that often quickly settles for attorneys' fees and supplemental disclosures to shareholders. In In...1674cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supreme-court-preview-packingham-v-northhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170223_PackinghamvNC22317.mp3Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:05:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina. This First Amendment case deals with whether a state may bar citizens from accessing social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A North Carolina state law...3701cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/courthouse-steps-mclane-v-eeochttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170223_CourthouseStepsMcLanev.EEOC22317.mp3Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:03:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn McLane v. EEOC the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve a circuit split regarding appellate court standard of review of district court decisions to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena. -- Damiana Ochoa worked for McLane Company, a supply chain...1409cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/litigation-update-american-bankers-assochttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170221_LitigationUpdateAmericanBankersAssociationandWashingtonFederalv.U.S.22117.mp3Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:01:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe American Bankers Association and Washington Federal, a bank holding company, have filed a suit against the United States government for reducing the amount of dividends paid to banks that own Federal Reserve stock. In the Federal Reserve Act of...1865cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/federal-state-local-and-tribal-partnershhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/201702171_FederalStateLocalandTribalPartnerships21717.mp3Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:59:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the last fifteen years, homeland security has become a field unto itself. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has become the second-largest federal executive department in the number of people it employs, and includes three...3234cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/ftc-past-and-futurehttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170216_FTCPastandFuture21616.mp3Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:31:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Trade Commission has dual missions to protect consumers and competition. The agency has a 100+ years of history as an antitrust enforcer and general consumer protection agency. And over the last 20 years it has emerged as the lead U.S....3652cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/criminal-regulatory-statutes-is-deliberahttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170215_CriminalRegulatoryStatutesIsDeliberateIndifferenceSufficientMensReaForAKnowingViolationCaseUpdateFarhavUnitedStates21517.mp3Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:28:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyFarha v. United States, currently pending on a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a case study raising basic notions of due process, fair notice, the rule of lenity, mens rea, and whether administrative and civil remedies...3074cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/supreme-court-preview-hernandez-v-mesahttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170213_SupremeCourtPreviewHernandezvMesa21317.mp3Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:26:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 21, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Hernandez v. Mesa. In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his friends were playing along a concrete structure on the border of the U.S. and Mexico....3767cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/user/fedsoc/president-trumps-one-in-two-out-executivhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20170210_PresidentTrumpsOneInTwoOutExecutiveOrder21017.mp3Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:48:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyPresident Trump took a step toward fulfilling his campaign promise to cut regulations last week when he signed an executive order calling for two regulations to be eliminated for every new one issued. The president has indicated that the order will...3382cleanfull