https://www.fedsoc.org*This series was formerly known as Teleforums.

FedSoc Forums is a virtual discussion series dedicated to providing expert analysis and intellectual commentary on today’s most pressing legal and policy issues. Produced by The Federalist Society’s Practice Groups, FedSoc Forum strives to create balanced conversations in various formats, such as monologues, debates, or panel discussions. In addition to regular episodes, FedSoc Forum features special content covering specific topics in the legal world, such as:

• Courthouse Steps: A series of rapid response discussions breaking down all the latest SCOTUS cases after oral argument or final decision
• A Seat at the Sitting: A monthly series that runs during the Court’s term featuring a panel of constitutional experts discussing the Supreme Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting
• Litigation Update: A series that provides the latest updates in important ongoing cases from all levels of government

The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>enPoliticsCopyright The Federalist Societyhttps://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/ac419e1d99d77eb96eddfe68b585d177.jpghttps://www.fedsoc.orgThu, 12 Mar 2026 20:24:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Societyfedsocforums@fedsoc.org*This series was formerly known as Teleforums. FedSoc Forums is a virtual discussion series dedicated to providing expert analysis and intellectual commentary on today’s most pressing legal and policy issues. Produced by The Federalist Society’s...*This series was formerly known as Teleforums.

FedSoc Forums is a virtual discussion series dedicated to providing expert analysis and intellectual commentary on today’s most pressing legal and policy issues. Produced by The Federalist Society’s Practice Groups, FedSoc Forum strives to create balanced conversations in various formats, such as monologues, debates, or panel discussions. In addition to regular episodes, FedSoc Forum features special content covering specific topics in the legal world, such as:

• Courthouse Steps: A series of rapid response discussions breaking down all the latest SCOTUS cases after oral argument or final decision
• A Seat at the Sitting: A monthly series that runs during the Court’s term featuring a panel of constitutional experts discussing the Supreme Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting
• Litigation Update: A series that provides the latest updates in important ongoing cases from all levels of government

The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.]]>cleanepisodichttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/suncor-energy-v-boulder-county-federalism-judicial-power-and-the-future-of-climate-litigation--70595911Colorado local governments sued several energy companies in state court, asserting nuisance, trespass, consumer protection, and conspiracy claims for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although framed as state-law tort actions, the lawsuits seek damages and remedies tied to worldwide energy production and cross-border emissions—issues that are inherently national and international in scope.
The energy companies argue that these claims are displaced by federal law because they attempt to regulate interstate and international pollution, an area requiring uniform federal rules. Allowing 50 different state courts to impose varying standards for global emissions, they contend, would undermine constitutional structure, interfere with federal authority, and invite judicial policymaking on questions committed to Congress and the political branches.
The Colorado Supreme Court rejected those arguments, permitting the case to proceed in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted review and added an important threshold question: whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this interlocutory stage—raising additional concerns about the proper limits of judicial power under Article III.
This webinar will examine whether state-law climate tort suits represent a legitimate exercise of state authority or an attempt to achieve sweeping national policy changes through strategic litigation rather than the democratic process. What does constitutional structure require when global environmental regulation collides with state common law? And what are the consequences for federalism if courts become venues for resolving inherently national policy disputes?
Join us for a discussion of the constitutional stakes and what this case may mean for the future of climate litigation nationwide.

Featuring:


Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center


O.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers


Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia


(Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70595911Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:12:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Suncor Energy, Inc., v. Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts may use tort law to impose what amounts to a nationwide climate regulatory regime—despite Congress’s central role in...Colorado local governments sued several energy companies in state court, asserting nuisance, trespass, consumer protection, and conspiracy claims for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although framed as state-law tort actions, the lawsuits seek damages and remedies tied to worldwide energy production and cross-border emissions—issues that are inherently national and international in scope.
The energy companies argue that these claims are displaced by federal law because they attempt to regulate interstate and international pollution, an area requiring uniform federal rules. Allowing 50 different state courts to impose varying standards for global emissions, they contend, would undermine constitutional structure, interfere with federal authority, and invite judicial policymaking on questions committed to Congress and the political branches.
The Colorado Supreme Court rejected those arguments, permitting the case to proceed in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted review and added an important threshold question: whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this interlocutory stage—raising additional concerns about the proper limits of judicial power under Article III.
This webinar will examine whether state-law climate tort suits represent a legitimate exercise of state authority or an attempt to achieve sweeping national policy changes through strategic litigation rather than the democratic process. What does constitutional structure require when global environmental regulation collides with state common law? And what are the consequences for federalism if courts become venues for resolving inherently national policy disputes?
Join us for a discussion of the constitutional stakes and what this case may mean for the future of climate litigation nationwide.

Featuring:


Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center


O.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers


Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia


(Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates]]>3201environmental & energy law,federalism,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-states-v-hemani--70555432
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will recap and analyze the oral argument at the Supreme Court.

Featuring:

Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
(Moderator) John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70555432Mon, 09 Mar 2026 21:10:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hemani. This case explores whether a federal law that criminalizes possession of firearms by an individual who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled...
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will recap and analyze the oral argument at the Supreme Court.

Featuring:

Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
(Moderator) John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC]]>3641criminal law & procedure,second amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-end-of-esg-collusion-a-conversation-on-the-vanguard-case--70551676
Featuring:


Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers' Research
Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas
(Moderator) Paul N. Watkins, Partner, Fusion Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70551676Mon, 09 Mar 2026 16:49:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis week, investment fund manager The Vanguard Group committed to ending its ESG-driven investment initiatives, ceasing any efforts to influence portfolio companies’ business strategies toward carbon-emissions reductions, enhancing disclosure...
Featuring:


Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers' Research
Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas
(Moderator) Paul N. Watkins, Partner, Fusion Law]]>3305environmental & energy law,financial servicescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/safeguarding-vulnerable-populations-online--70485459
Featuring:

India McKinney, Director of Federal Affairs, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Clare Morell, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Spence Purnell, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute
Brandon J. Smith, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) Prof. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70485459Thu, 05 Mar 2026 17:11:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyModern life is increasingly dependent on the internet, but with dependence comes vulnerability. Popular websites enable fraud, disinformation, and harassment. Although anyone on the internet can be at risk, particular age demographics, including...
Featuring:

India McKinney, Director of Federal Affairs, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Clare Morell, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Spence Purnell, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute
Brandon J. Smith, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) Prof. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law]]>3613criminal law & procedure,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-are-the-challenges-that-immigration-policy-poses-for-businesses--70389462Featuring:

Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow, Border Security and Immigration Center, The Heritage Foundation
James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal
Patrick Shen, Vice President, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Chris L. Thomas, Partner, Holland & Hart
(Moderator) Randel K. Johnson, Immigration Academic Fellow, Cornell Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70389462Mon, 02 Mar 2026 15:00:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyImmigration policy has significant impacts on businesses, and the debate over wise immigration policy includes many economic and political considerations. This panel will discuss the most significant challenges that immigration policy poses for...Featuring:

Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow, Border Security and Immigration Center, The Heritage Foundation
James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal
Patrick Shen, Vice President, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Chris L. Thomas, Partner, Holland & Hart
(Moderator) Randel K. Johnson, Immigration Academic Fellow, Cornell Law School]]>3214administrative law & regulatio,law & economicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ftc-s-2026-consumer-protection-priorities--70275992matthew.sawtelle@fed-soc.org by February 12th.
Featuring:

Brian Berggren, Acting Associate Director, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission
Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Antitrust Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70275992Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:40:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat are the FTC’s 2026 priorities in the areas of consumer protection, privacy, and artificial intelligence? This panel will discuss FTC's enforcement, policymaking, and rulemaking priorities and how they may differ from those in the Biden...matthew.sawtelle@fed-soc.org by February 12th.
Featuring:

Brian Berggren, Acting Associate Director, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission
Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Antitrust Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce]]>3869administrative law & regulatio,corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/birthright-citizenship-in-context-law-history-and-contemporary-debate--70253436Drawing on their recent scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, our panelists will examine how original meaning, common-law antecedents, and modern legal arguments intersect in today’s birthright citizenship controversy.

Featuring:

Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Steven Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70253436Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:05:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs debates over birthright citizenship intensify in legal and public spheres, this webinar will explore the constitutional, historical, and jurisprudential foundations of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Drawing on their recent...Drawing on their recent scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, our panelists will examine how original meaning, common-law antecedents, and modern legal arguments intersect in today’s birthright citizenship controversy.

Featuring:

Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Steven Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy]]>3336administrative law & regulatio,constitution,fourteenth amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-2026--70253418
Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.

Featuring:

Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye Institute
Jeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Mary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
Jordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
(Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70253418Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:00:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) -...
Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.

Featuring:

Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye Institute
Jeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Mary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
Jordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
(Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
]]>4325constitution,criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of pow,international & national secur,labor & employment law,litigation,property law,second amendment,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-is-liable-in-detransition-cases--70253405 This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems.
Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation?

Featuring:

Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending Freedom
Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty
(Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education
(Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70253405Wed, 18 Feb 2026 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the first medical malpractice verdict of its kind, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who sued the clinicians responsible for performing a double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The case marks a historic legal development... This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems.
Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation?

Featuring:

Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending Freedom
Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty
(Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education
(Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire
]]>3154healthcare,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/moving-away-from-aba-accreditation--70102286
Featuring:

Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Daniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70102286Tue, 17 Feb 2026 16:50:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has long been the only federally recognized accreditor for law schools. In that role, it is able to direct what law schools teach and determine what constitutes sufficient...
Featuring:

Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Daniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law]]>3667professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/labor-law-reform-on-capitol-hill-opening-offer-or-impasse--70102000The ideas are abundant, but are any of them viable? Which ones can thread the needle in Congress? And more importantly, how would they change the way employees, employers, and unions conduct their business? Join us as our expert panel breaks them down.
Featuring:

Thomas Beck, Senior Adviser, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, CHRO Association
F. Vincent Vernuccio, President, Institute for the American Worker
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70102000Tue, 17 Feb 2026 16:41:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast session saw no shortage of proposals in Congress for labor-law reform. In the Senate, lawmakers introduced proposals ranging from mandatory interest arbitration to bans on organizing undocumented workers. In the House, representatives proposed a...The ideas are abundant, but are any of them viable? Which ones can thread the needle in Congress? And more importantly, how would they change the way employees, employers, and unions conduct their business? Join us as our expert panel breaks them down.
Featuring:

Thomas Beck, Senior Adviser, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, CHRO Association
F. Vincent Vernuccio, President, Institute for the American Worker
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>3494cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/no-one-can-own-the-law-the-third-circuit-s-review-of-whether-publishing-astm-standards-is-fair-use--70101813Featuring:

Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/70101813Tue, 17 Feb 2026 16:34:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for a webinar examining the Third Circuit’s ongoing review of a decision holding that publishing ASTM standards—which are funded by licenses to use the standards—is a noninfringing fair use under US copyright law. This...Featuring:

Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture]]>3663administrative law & regulatio,intellectual property,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/military-law-in-practice-perspectives-from-current-and-former-general-counsels--69892700This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and the Department of the Navy. Drawing on their experience, practice, and diverse career paths, the panel will explore the practice of law within the Department of War and the individual services; the opportunities, challenges, and rewards of this dynamic field of law and policy; the skills and competencies critical to success both within government service and beyond; and how this unique area of practice broadens Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) as attorneys and equips them for successful transitions to civilian practice.
This program serves as the inaugural webinar of the Armed Services Legal Network. To learn more about this new initiative of the Federalist Society, click here. If you are currently a JAG or a veteran practicing law and are interested in participating in the Network, please contact us at Networks@fedsoc.org.
CLE Info
Featuring:

Hon. James Baehr, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Reserve; Former Military Judge
Hon. Paul C. Ney, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense and currently Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Hon. Robert J. Sander, Former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, Former Acting General Counsel of the Army, and currently Founding Partner, The Sander Group, PLLC
(Moderator) Toby Curto, Colonel, U.S. Army]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69892700Mon, 09 Feb 2026 20:26:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyCLE credit for this event will be available at On-Demand CLE. Anticipated availability date: March 15th. This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and...This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and the Department of the Navy. Drawing on their experience, practice, and diverse career paths, the panel will explore the practice of law within the Department of War and the individual services; the opportunities, challenges, and rewards of this dynamic field of law and policy; the skills and competencies critical to success both within government service and beyond; and how this unique area of practice broadens Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) as attorneys and equips them for successful transitions to civilian practice.
This program serves as the inaugural webinar of the Armed Services Legal Network. To learn more about this new initiative of the Federalist Society, click here. If you are currently a JAG or a veteran practicing law and are interested in participating in the Network, please contact us at Networks@fedsoc.org.
CLE Info
Featuring:

Hon. James Baehr, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Reserve; Former Military Judge
Hon. Paul C. Ney, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense and currently Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Hon. Robert J. Sander, Former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, Former Acting General Counsel of the Army, and currently Founding Partner, The Sander Group, PLLC
(Moderator) Toby Curto, Colonel, U.S. Army]]>3560cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-federal-judicial-center-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale-for-a-climate-agenda--69888933
Featuring:

Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLCC; former Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
Carrie Campbell Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)
Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69888933Mon, 09 Feb 2026 17:09:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Judicial Center describes itself as “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government.” Yet it has recently come under scrutiny for its release of a new Reference Manual on Scientific...
Featuring:

Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLCC; former Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
Carrie Campbell Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)
Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia]]>2612environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/your-data-your-choice-consumer-rights-and-privacy-in-the-open-banking-debate--69785047Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act is currently under review by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, prompting renewed debate over how consumers should access their own financial information and decide how it is shared. Translating that principle into practice, raises significant legal and policy questions about whether current regulatory and market structures truly empower consumers or instead concentrate control over data into the hands of banks
This webinar will examine open banking through a consumer-centered legal lens, focusing on how rules governing data access, privacy, and consent impact real-world choice. Panelists will discuss how bank-centric approaches may prioritize institutional preferences over consumer autonomy, potentially limiting Americans’ ability to use innovative financial tools that rely on secure, authorized data sharing.
Throughout the program, panelists will evaluate the CFPB’s Section 1033 rulemaking and consider whether a consumer-directed approach to financial data can both defend consumer’s right to their own data and foster innovation.
Featuring:

Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLC
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
(Moderator) Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers Research]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69785047Wed, 04 Feb 2026 14:35:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyWho controls your financial data and who decides how it can be used? As Americans increasingly rely on digital banking, apps, and financial technology tools, that question has moved to the forefront of a policy debate that may come to a head in the...Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act is currently under review by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, prompting renewed debate over how consumers should access their own financial information and decide how it is shared. Translating that principle into practice, raises significant legal and policy questions about whether current regulatory and market structures truly empower consumers or instead concentrate control over data into the hands of banks
This webinar will examine open banking through a consumer-centered legal lens, focusing on how rules governing data access, privacy, and consent impact real-world choice. Panelists will discuss how bank-centric approaches may prioritize institutional preferences over consumer autonomy, potentially limiting Americans’ ability to use innovative financial tools that rely on secure, authorized data sharing.
Throughout the program, panelists will evaluate the CFPB’s Section 1033 rulemaking and consider whether a consumer-directed approach to financial data can both defend consumer’s right to their own data and foster innovation.
Featuring:

Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLC
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
(Moderator) Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers Research]]>3634corporations,financial services,financial services & e-commerc,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-ellingburg-v-united-states--69761160Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69761160Tue, 03 Feb 2026 14:33:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyEllingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to...Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC]]>2945criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/school-choice-the-ftcsp--69815175 This panel will discuss the current state of educational choice and school choice programs across the nation, and the potential impact of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program.
Featuring:

Jim Blew, Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom Institute
Leslie Hiner, Vice President of Legal Policy, EdChoice
Shaka Mitchell, Senior Fellow, the American Federation for Children
(Moderator) Gene Schaerr, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69815175Fri, 30 Jan 2026 18:00:11 +0000The Federalist SocietySchool choice has come more to the fore of public awareness in the past several years. This recent increase in attention may be evidenced by the inclusion of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program in 2025's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which,... This panel will discuss the current state of educational choice and school choice programs across the nation, and the potential impact of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program.
Featuring:

Jim Blew, Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom Institute
Leslie Hiner, Vice President of Legal Policy, EdChoice
Shaka Mitchell, Senior Fellow, the American Federation for Children
(Moderator) Gene Schaerr, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
]]>3616education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-york-california-and-the-nlra-the-future-of-american-labor-law--69668754Were those decisions right? Will they hold? And if they do, what do they mean for the future of federal–state relations? Join our panel as they look forward to the next chapter of American labor law.
Featuring:

Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School
Aaron B. Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69668754Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:57:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast year was a tumultuous one for labor law. Not only was the National Labor Relations Board stalled by the firing of then-Member Gwynne Wilcox, but the Board itself came under fire in lawsuits challenging its current structure. Perceiving a gap,...Were those decisions right? Will they hold? And if they do, what do they mean for the future of federal–state relations? Join our panel as they look forward to the next chapter of American labor law.
Featuring:

Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School
Aaron B. Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>3605cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/nondelegation-and-the-limits-of-agency-authority-after-consumers-research-and-loper-bright--69668715
Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem.
What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next.
Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine.
Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide.

Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69668715Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:54:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe panel will discuss the questions left open—or raised—by the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC v. Consumers' Research and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, about the proper approach to statutory construction and the role that...
Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem.
What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next.
Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine.
Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide.

Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State]]>3775cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-bost-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections--69624187Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.
Featuring:

Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69624187Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:14:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyBost v. Illinois State Board of Elections involved whether a candidate for federal office has standing to challenge an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified as of election day and received...Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.
Featuring:

Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom]]>2630election law,federalism & separation of pow,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-louisiana-v-callais-round-2--69624124
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
(Moderator) Brad A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69624124Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:08:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyLouisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later...
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
(Moderator) Brad A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group]]>3168cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-barrett-v-united-states--69624034Though at first glance a technical case related to a provision of the federal criminal code, Barrett raises interesting questions about the Double Jeopardy clause, statutory interpretation, and sentencing.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.
Featuring:

William S. McClintock, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69624034Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Barrett v. United States, the Court was asked to consider the relationship between two provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act and whether a single act that violated both provisions could yield two convictions. The Court held the answer was...Though at first glance a technical case related to a provision of the federal criminal code, Barrett raises interesting questions about the Double Jeopardy clause, statutory interpretation, and sentencing.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.
Featuring:

William S. McClintock, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP]]>2072criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-little-v-hecox-and-west-virginia-v-b-p-j--69623748
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69623748Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:45:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyLittle v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia...
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>3618civil rights,constitution,education policy,fourteenth amendment,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/emerging-issues-in-federal-death-penalty-litigation--69623692Panelists will address issues including the use of commutations and clemency, charging and authorization protocols in capital cases, litigation strategies unique to federal death-eligible prosecutions, and the interaction between federal and state capital regimes. The discussion will situate current high-profile cases within broader doctrinal and policy trends, assessing how differing approaches across recent administrations have shaped prosecutorial discretion, defense strategy, and judicial oversight in capital litigation.
The panel will also provide forward-looking perspectives on where federal death penalty practice may be headed, including implications for future administrations and for capital litigation nationwide.
Featuring:

Prof. David I. Bruck, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Steve Mellin, Retired Assistant United States Attorney
Johnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft
(Moderator) James M. Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69623692Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:40:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecent federal prosecutions have renewed attention on the administration and future of the federal death penalty. This panel brings together experienced capital litigators to examine the evolving legal, institutional, and practical landscape facing...Panelists will address issues including the use of commutations and clemency, charging and authorization protocols in capital cases, litigation strategies unique to federal death-eligible prosecutions, and the interaction between federal and state capital regimes. The discussion will situate current high-profile cases within broader doctrinal and policy trends, assessing how differing approaches across recent administrations have shaped prosecutorial discretion, defense strategy, and judicial oversight in capital litigation.
The panel will also provide forward-looking perspectives on where federal death penalty practice may be headed, including implications for future administrations and for capital litigation nationwide.
Featuring:

Prof. David I. Bruck, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Steve Mellin, Retired Assistant United States Attorney
Johnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft
(Moderator) James M. Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law]]>3674criminal law & procedure,federal courtscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-union-for-every-driver-sectoral-bargaining-comes-to-the-rideshare-industry--69595985Featuring:
David Madland, Senior Fellow & Senior Adviser, American Worker Project, Center for American Progress
William L. Messenger, Vice President & Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69595985Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:38:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyTwo state laws could transform labor relations in the United States. In both California and Massachusetts, statutes now allow rideshare drivers to organize at the sectoral level: one union could represent all drivers in each state. Both represent a...Featuring:
David Madland, Senior Fellow & Senior Adviser, American Worker Project, Center for American Progress
William L. Messenger, Vice President & Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>3566cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/loper-bright-fallout-for-sec-rulemaking--69562791The district court ordered supplemental briefing on Loper Bright implications, but before the SEC filed its supplemental response, it dismissed the case against all defendants, citing “policy reasons”, without more explanation.


Our panelists will discuss the numerous legal and policy issues and questions raised by this sequence of events.

Featuring:


Jan Folena, Partner and Co-Chair of Securities & Regulatory Enforcement, Stradley Ronon
Margaret Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Michael Piwowar, Executive Vice President, Milken Institute Finance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69562791Fri, 23 Jan 2026 18:33:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn an unprecedented action, the SEC in July dismissed with prejudice a pending enforcement case concerning an alleged violation of a rule promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). In 2023, the SEC had charged the defendants (a mutual...The district court ordered supplemental briefing on Loper Bright implications, but before the SEC filed its supplemental response, it dismissed the case against all defendants, citing “policy reasons”, without more explanation.


Our panelists will discuss the numerous legal and policy issues and questions raised by this sequence of events.

Featuring:


Jan Folena, Partner and Co-Chair of Securities & Regulatory Enforcement, Stradley Ronon
Margaret Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Michael Piwowar, Executive Vice President, Milken Institute Finance]]>3653administrative law & regulatio,corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/analysis-of-the-new-proposed-waters-of-the-united-states-wotus-rule--69562786The public comment period for this rule ended on January 5th, 2026, with a final rule likely to come out in the coming months. Please join our panel of experts as they detail what is in the rule, provide analysis and perspective on the rule, and explain what changes the agencies should make for any final rule.
Featuring:

Prof. Pat Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus, Vermont Law School
John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLC
Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Daren Bakst, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment and Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69562786Fri, 23 Jan 2026 18:32:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 20th, 2025, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule to define what “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) means under the Clean Water Act. This is yet another effort to finally provide a durable WOTUS rule....The public comment period for this rule ended on January 5th, 2026, with a final rule likely to come out in the coming months. Please join our panel of experts as they detail what is in the rule, provide analysis and perspective on the rule, and explain what changes the agencies should make for any final rule.
Featuring:

Prof. Pat Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus, Vermont Law School
John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLC
Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Daren Bakst, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment and Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute]]>4128administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,property lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-prosecutor-v-paivi-rasanen--69534357Featuring:
Lorcán Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International (Counsel for Päivi Räsänen)
(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69534357Wed, 21 Jan 2026 18:30:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyPäivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian, has been criminally prosecuted for expressing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality in a 2019 tweet. Following multiple police interrogations, in April 2021, she was charged with...Featuring:
Lorcán Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International (Counsel for Päivi Räsänen)
(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project]]>3637cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/regulation-and-fair-access-to-banking--69534324
Featuring:
John Berlau, Senior fellow and Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tabitha Edgens, Executive Vice President & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute
Brian Knight, Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement Team, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) John Heltman, Washington Bureau Chief, American Banker]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69534324Wed, 21 Jan 2026 17:14:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyAllegations of politically motivated “debanking” have intensified debate over how federal regulation, supervisory practices, and concerns about “reputation risk” influence banks’ decisions about which customers to serve....
Featuring:
John Berlau, Senior fellow and Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tabitha Edgens, Executive Vice President & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute
Brian Knight, Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement Team, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) John Heltman, Washington Bureau Chief, American Banker]]>3712financial services,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-january-2026--69427463
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.
Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.
Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Featuring:

Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
Stephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
Jacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Ryan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas
(Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69427463Thu, 08 Jan 2026 18:00:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal...
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.
Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.
Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Featuring:

Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
Stephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
Jacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Ryan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas
(Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
]]>3673administrative law & regulatio,education policy,federalism & separation of pow,fourteenth amendment,second amendment,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-defending-education-v-olentangy-local-school-district-board-of-education--69328085
Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69328085Tue, 06 Jan 2026 20:35:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Defending Education brought a suit challenging Olentangy Local School District policies related to student speech. These policies, among other things, barred students from...
Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC]]>3247education policy,free speech & election law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-nrsc-v-fec--69328076The case kicked off in 2022 when two Republican party committees brought suit against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They contended the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their capacity to coordinate campaign advertising with candidates, and that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) which had upheld the restrictions as constitutional, had been made unsound by developments in law, facts, and precedent in the intervening time.
As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc which upheld FECA. The Supreme Court granted cert. and Oral Argument is set to be heard on December 9, 2025.
Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.
Featuring:

Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69328076Tue, 06 Jan 2026 20:32:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) the Court is set to consider “whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their...The case kicked off in 2022 when two Republican party committees brought suit against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They contended the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their capacity to coordinate campaign advertising with candidates, and that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) which had upheld the restrictions as constitutional, had been made unsound by developments in law, facts, and precedent in the intervening time.
As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc which upheld FECA. The Supreme Court granted cert. and Oral Argument is set to be heard on December 9, 2025.
Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.
Featuring:

Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech]]>3625election law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-trump-v-barbara--69325849The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.
Featuring:

Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Prof. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69325849Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:27:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,160, which denies birthright citizenship to children born after February...The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.
Featuring:

Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Prof. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center]]>3817civil rights,constitution,fourteenth amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-learning-resources-v-trump--69014964
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School
Adam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69014964Fri, 12 Dec 2025 21:44:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case examining the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and its use to impose tariffs. This program will break...
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School
Adam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State]]>3941administrative law & regulatio,constitution,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-texas-association-of-money-services-businesses-v-bondi--69014939Should the government be allowed to surveil your financial transactions? Where is the line drawn between protecting privacy and conducting legal investigations? What happens when regulators set standards that can't be met? Join us for a webinar examining Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi. On this FedSoc forum, Robert Johnson and Nicholas Anthony will discuss the status of the case, its implications for the future, and the wider landscape of financial surveillance.
Featuring:

Nicholas Anthony, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/69014939Fri, 12 Dec 2025 21:40:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 1, 2025, the Texas Association of Money Services Businesses filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) order that lowered the cash-transaction reporting threshold from $10,000 to...Should the government be allowed to surveil your financial transactions? Where is the line drawn between protecting privacy and conducting legal investigations? What happens when regulators set standards that can't be met? Join us for a webinar examining Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi. On this FedSoc forum, Robert Johnson and Nicholas Anthony will discuss the status of the case, its implications for the future, and the wider landscape of financial surveillance.
Featuring:

Nicholas Anthony, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>3532financial services,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-trump-v-slaughter--68996253
Join us for a discussion of oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter and the questions it presents about separation of powers, for-cause removal, and the future of Humphrey's Executor.

Featuring:

Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68996253Thu, 11 Dec 2025 19:59:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyHumphrey's Executor v. United States, decided in 1935, upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring that a president can remove an FTC commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In March 2025,...
Join us for a discussion of oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter and the questions it presents about separation of powers, for-cause removal, and the future of Humphrey's Executor.

Featuring:

Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP]]>3647administrative law & regulatio,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-olivier-v-city-of-brandon--68993550The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.
Featuring:

Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Steven Burnett, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68993550Thu, 11 Dec 2025 16:53:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyGabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently...The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.
Featuring:

Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Steven Burnett, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School]]>3365free speech & election law,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-first-choice-women-s-resource-centers-inc-v-platkin--68993500First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.
The Supreme Court will consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.
Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.
Featuring:

Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC
(Moderator) Christopher Bates, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68993500Thu, 11 Dec 2025 16:49:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names...First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.
The Supreme Court will consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.
Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.
Featuring:

Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC
(Moderator) Christopher Bates, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie]]>3254religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-landor-v-louisiana-department-of-corrections-and-public-safety--68993452The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether RLUIPA allows prisoners to seek damages against government officials in their personal capacities for violations of religious rights. Oral argument is set for November 10, 2025.
Featuring:

Meredith Holland Kessler, Managing Attorney, Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic and Term Teaching Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Joshua C. McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68993452Thu, 11 Dec 2025 16:45:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyDamon Landor, a state prisoner and practicing Rastafarian, refused to cut his hair as an expression of his faith. After prison officials forcibly restrained and shaved him, Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act...The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether RLUIPA allows prisoners to seek damages against government officials in their personal capacities for violations of religious rights. Oral argument is set for November 10, 2025.
Featuring:

Meredith Holland Kessler, Managing Attorney, Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic and Term Teaching Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Joshua C. McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School]]>3401religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ftc-v-meta-requiem-for-the-war-on-tech--68993032The ruling has prompted vigorous commentary, including renewed debate over the proper role of courts in reviewing ambitious agency theories of market power and competitive harm.
Join our panel, featuring former FTC officials and veterans of the Trump Administration, for a timely discussion of the opinion, the critiques, and what this moment may signal for the trajectory of federal competition policy.
Featuring:

Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute
Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Daniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights
(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68993032Thu, 11 Dec 2025 16:18:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat does the district court’s recent decision in FTC v. Meta portend for the future of the technology sector, free expression, and modern antitrust enforcement? After years of litigation, Judge James Boasberg concluded that the FTC had not...The ruling has prompted vigorous commentary, including renewed debate over the proper role of courts in reviewing ambitious agency theories of market power and competitive harm.
Join our panel, featuring former FTC officials and veterans of the Trump Administration, for a timely discussion of the opinion, the critiques, and what this moment may signal for the trajectory of federal competition policy.
Featuring:

Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute
Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Daniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights
(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce]]>3486corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-cox-communications-inc-v-sony-music-entertainment--68993247 The Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. Oral argument is set for December 1.
Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.

Featuring:
Devlin Hartline, Senior Fellow, Forum for Intellectual Property, Hudson Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68993247Thu, 11 Dec 2025 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court is set to determine whether an internet service provider can be held liable—and deemed to have acted willfully—for copyright infringement based solely on its... The Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. Oral argument is set for December 1.
Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.

Featuring:
Devlin Hartline, Senior Fellow, Forum for Intellectual Property, Hudson Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
]]>3526cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/which-path-for-patent-challenges-the-uspto-s-one-challenge-nprm-for-inter-partes-review--68858281
Featuring:

Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLC
Brian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68858281Wed, 03 Dec 2025 20:41:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for a timely webinar examining the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant...
Featuring:

Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLC
Brian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr]]>3794cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-december-2025--68761981
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (December 1) - Immigration; Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't (December 1) - Copyright Infringement; Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another"s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (December 2) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi (December 3) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.
Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies) (December 8) - Presidential Removal Powers; Administrative Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (December 9) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. " 109.37.
Hamm v. Smith (December 10) - Capital Punishment; Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (December 10) - Financial Services; Securities; Issue(s): Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action.

Featuring:

David W. Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP
Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Director, Center for Individual Rights
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law & Faculty Director of the Election Law Center, Florida State University College of Law
Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68761981Wed, 26 Nov 2025 21:02:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (December 1) - Immigration; Issue(s): Whether a...
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (December 1) - Immigration; Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't (December 1) - Copyright Infringement; Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another"s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (December 2) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi (December 3) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.
Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies) (December 8) - Presidential Removal Powers; Administrative Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (December 9) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. " 109.37.
Hamm v. Smith (December 10) - Capital Punishment; Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (December 10) - Financial Services; Securities; Issue(s): Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action.

Featuring:

David W. Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP
Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Director, Center for Individual Rights
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law & Faculty Director of the Election Law Center, Florida State University College of Law
Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP]]>5124administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,corporations,criminal law & procedure,financial services,free speech & election law,intellectual property,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/discussing-attempts-to-address-federal-overcriminalization--68747724Featuring:

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
Shana O’Toole, Founder & President, Due Process Institute
Prof. Kenneth W. Simons, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68747724Tue, 25 Nov 2025 22:52:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyA recent executive order entitled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” and two congressional proposals: the Count the Crimes to Cut Act and the Mens Rea Reform Act (also known as the default-mens-rea proposal), all have...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
Shana O’Toole, Founder & President, Due Process Institute
Prof. Kenneth W. Simons, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>3740criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-lange-v-houston-county--68727177Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.
Featuring:

Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC
(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68727177Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:07:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyAnna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded...Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.
Featuring:

Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC
(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center]]>3159civil rights,healthcarecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-born-equal-remaking-america-s-constitution-1840-1920--68727221 Featuring:

Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School
(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68727221Thu, 20 Nov 2025 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920, Prof. Akhil Reed Amar traces the arc of American constitutional debate from the post-Founding era to the Progressive Era, focusing especially on America’s fundamental... Featuring:

Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School
(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

]]>3669civil rights,constitution,fourteenth amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sap-motorola-and-the-future-of-ptab-reform--68369796A core PTAB function is deciding Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions that challenge patent validity. Under new PTO leadership, IPR institution rates have sharply declined, prompting complaints from companies like SAP America and Motorola, which claim they were unfairly harmed by the shift and that the PTO has not provided adequate legal justification. PTO Director John Squires has defended the new direction, announcing he will personally decide all preliminary IPR institutions—a task previously handled by three-judge panels. The PTO has also proposed rules requiring petitioners to waive future prior art challenges to qualify for IPR institution.
This webinar will examine the SAP and Motorola petitions, Director Squires’s policy memo, and their implications for PTAB reform, the AIA framework, and the constitutional foundations of U.S. patent law.
Featuring:
Arthur Gollwitzer, Partner, Jackson Walker LLP
Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel, The Council for Innovation Promotion
Robert Taylor, Founder and Owner, RPT Legal Strategies PC
[Moderator] Philip Nelson, Partner, Knobbe Martens]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68369796Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:56:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), created under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, has long been a source of debate. The Supreme Court has reviewed several of its procedures, and Congress has introduced PTAB reform bills in every session...A core PTAB function is deciding Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions that challenge patent validity. Under new PTO leadership, IPR institution rates have sharply declined, prompting complaints from companies like SAP America and Motorola, which claim they were unfairly harmed by the shift and that the PTO has not provided adequate legal justification. PTO Director John Squires has defended the new direction, announcing he will personally decide all preliminary IPR institutions—a task previously handled by three-judge panels. The PTO has also proposed rules requiring petitioners to waive future prior art challenges to qualify for IPR institution.
This webinar will examine the SAP and Motorola petitions, Director Squires’s policy memo, and their implications for PTAB reform, the AIA framework, and the constitutional foundations of U.S. patent law.
Featuring:
Arthur Gollwitzer, Partner, Jackson Walker LLP
Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel, The Council for Innovation Promotion
Robert Taylor, Founder and Owner, RPT Legal Strategies PC
[Moderator] Philip Nelson, Partner, Knobbe Martens]]>3603intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/law-firm-discrimination-investigations--68369538Featuring:

Jonathan A. Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP; Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute
Alison Somin, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project; Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68369538Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:32:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhile President Trump’s Executive Orders directed at individual law firms drew immediate attention, the administration’s broader enforcement of nondiscrimination employment law in the legal industry has gone comparatively unanalyzed. In...Featuring:

Jonathan A. Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP; Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute
Alison Somin, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project; Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute]]>3491administrative law & regulatio,civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-november-2025--68427753
Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.
The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School
(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68427753Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:30:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the...
Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.
The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School
(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

]]>5372cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/discussion-on-the-future-of-state-ag-s-consumer-lawsuits-against-chinese-companies--68427671 Featuring:

Hon. Mike Hilgers, Attorney General, Nebraska
Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska
(Moderator) O.H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68427671Wed, 29 Oct 2025 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyStates have become more and more active in using their consumer protection statutes to initiate investigations and lawsuits against Chinese companies. These investigations and efforts have centered on concerns about so-called white labeling of... Featuring:

Hon. Mike Hilgers, Attorney General, Nebraska
Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska
(Moderator) O.H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
]]>3349international law & trade,litigation,security & privacycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-in-re-tesla-inc-derivative-litigation--68333568Featuring:

Hon. Myron T. Steele, Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court; Of Counsel, Potter Anderson
(Moderator) Robert T. Miller, Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68333568Wed, 29 Oct 2025 13:26:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2018, Tesla’s board of directors proposed, and its stockholders approved by a wide margin, a significant executive compensation plan for CEO Elon Musk. Under the plan, Musk stood to earn tens of billions of dollars if he achieved a series of...Featuring:

Hon. Myron T. Steele, Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court; Of Counsel, Potter Anderson
(Moderator) Robert T. Miller, Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3614corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-state-courts-set-global-climate-policy--68092673Featuring:

David Bookbinder, Director of Law & Policy, Environmental Integrity Project
Professor Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Founder and Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School
Professor Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
(Moderator) Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68092673Fri, 10 Oct 2025 16:56:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyClimate change has been described as a “super wicked” policy problem. Policymakers face profound difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the risks, the costs of potential solutions, and the challenges of collective action. Because...Featuring:

David Bookbinder, Director of Law & Policy, Environmental Integrity Project
Professor Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Founder and Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School
Professor Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
(Moderator) Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC]]>3799environmental & energy law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-attorney-s-fees-as-deterrence-in-civil-rights-litigation--68077888Mere days following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the New York Assembly enacted new legislation allowing secular businesses to permit customers to carry concealed weapons on their property, but refusing to afford sensitive locations, like churches, the same choice. His Tabernacle Church in Elmira, New York filed suit under the Civil Rights Act claiming the new law violated its First and Second Amendment rights. It prevailed both in district court and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
When the matter returned to the district court, the State of New York claimed the church’s attorneys were entitled to just 16% of the fees requested in their application. Judge John R. Sinatra, Jr. of the Western District of New York rejected New York’s arguments, awarding 100% of the requested fees, concluding that the Civil Rights Act “encourages lawyers taking meritorious cases like this one” but to engage in “[p]erennial ‘haircuts’” in fee awards would “discourage well qualified counsel.”
Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the importance of courts awarding appropriate attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation.
Featuring:

Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
(Moderator) Jeremy G. Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68077888Thu, 09 Oct 2025 16:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen Congress amended the Civil Rights Act in 1976, it directed federal courts to use judicial discretion to award “reasonable attorney’s fees” to a prevailing party. Yet when state actors are found in violation of the nation’s...Mere days following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the New York Assembly enacted new legislation allowing secular businesses to permit customers to carry concealed weapons on their property, but refusing to afford sensitive locations, like churches, the same choice. His Tabernacle Church in Elmira, New York filed suit under the Civil Rights Act claiming the new law violated its First and Second Amendment rights. It prevailed both in district court and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
When the matter returned to the district court, the State of New York claimed the church’s attorneys were entitled to just 16% of the fees requested in their application. Judge John R. Sinatra, Jr. of the Western District of New York rejected New York’s arguments, awarding 100% of the requested fees, concluding that the Civil Rights Act “encourages lawyers taking meritorious cases like this one” but to engage in “[p]erennial ‘haircuts’” in fee awards would “discourage well qualified counsel.”
Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the importance of courts awarding appropriate attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation.
Featuring:

Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
(Moderator) Jeremy G. Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty]]>3682civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/religious-arbitration-family-law-and-constitutional-limits-in-texas--68067728These commitments were tested in a North Texas family law case, where an Islamic prenuptial agreement called for disputes to be resolved under religious law. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately stayed the arbitration order and ordered review of the original arbitration agreement for "validity and enforceability."
Other recent developments - including video accounts of a Houston imam calling for boycotts of certain businesses and reports of a proposed Muslim-exclusive residential community (“EPIC”) - have prompted legislative responses such as HB 4211, which requires property transfer disclosures and ensures disputes are adjudicated under Texas and U.S. law.
How should courts weigh religious arbitration against constitutional and statutory protections? What legal tools exist to address disputes that implicate cultural or religious norms? How can Americans both respect religious diversity and uphold constitutional imperatives?
Featuring:

Qanta A. Ahmed, MD, Senior Fellow, Independent Women's Forum

https://www.qantaahmed.com/bio/

Professor Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68067728Wed, 08 Oct 2025 20:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent months, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a ban on “Sharia law and Sharia compounds” in the state, citing longstanding principles that U.S. and Texas law take precedence over conflicting foreign law. This position is reflected...These commitments were tested in a North Texas family law case, where an Islamic prenuptial agreement called for disputes to be resolved under religious law. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately stayed the arbitration order and ordered review of the original arbitration agreement for "validity and enforceability."
Other recent developments - including video accounts of a Houston imam calling for boycotts of certain businesses and reports of a proposed Muslim-exclusive residential community (“EPIC”) - have prompted legislative responses such as HB 4211, which requires property transfer disclosures and ensures disputes are adjudicated under Texas and U.S. law.
How should courts weigh religious arbitration against constitutional and statutory protections? What legal tools exist to address disputes that implicate cultural or religious norms? How can Americans both respect religious diversity and uphold constitutional imperatives?
Featuring:

Qanta A. Ahmed, MD, Senior Fellow, Independent Women's Forum

https://www.qantaahmed.com/bio/

Professor Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project]]>3925civil rights,family law,first amendment,international & national secur,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-kloosterman-v-metropolitan-hospital--68031232Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court.
Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations.
Featuring:

Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy
(Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68031232Mon, 06 Oct 2025 14:20:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyValerie Kloosterman, a devout Christian and third-generation healthcare professional, served her community as a Physician Assistant for 17 years. In 2021, University of Michigan Health introduced mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training...Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court.
Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations.
Featuring:

Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy
(Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>3549labor & employment law,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-october-2025--68054496
Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.
Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.
U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255.
Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause.
Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.
Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

Featuring:

Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio
Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP
(Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/68054496Fri, 03 Oct 2025 16:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial...
Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.
Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.
U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255.
Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause.
Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.
Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

Featuring:

Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio
Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP
(Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
]]>5263administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,criminal law & procedure,election law,free speech & election law,litigation,politics,religious liberty,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2025-ron-rotunda-memorial-webinar--67993323Join us for the 2025 installment in that series, where the Honorable G. Barry Anderson will, in a discussion moderated by Professor Michael McGinniss, offer his insights about judicial independence and the rule of law, and the role of lawyers in supporting the rule of law. He will discuss how such support can be well demonstrated to clients when litigation does not turn out as they had hoped. He will also address systems of judicial selection and their impacts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Featuring:

Hon. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67993323Fri, 03 Oct 2025 00:41:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessor Ron Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law...Join us for the 2025 installment in that series, where the Honorable G. Barry Anderson will, in a discussion moderated by Professor Michael McGinniss, offer his insights about judicial independence and the rule of law, and the role of lawyers in supporting the rule of law. He will discuss how such support can be well demonstrated to clients when litigation does not turn out as they had hoped. He will also address systems of judicial selection and their impacts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Featuring:

Hon. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law]]>3521jurisprudence,litigation,professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-digital-services-act-and-global-free-speech--67971788EU officials contend the Digital Services Act is needed to protect democracy from misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech online. Regulators in Brussels promise it will create a safer digital space by holding platforms such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and X accountable for policing these categories. Service providers that fail to comply risk fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue, restricted access to the EU market, or suspension of operations.
House Judiciary Republicans recently issued a report warning that European regulators could use the Digital Services Act to chill speech, suppress political dissent, and establish a global censorship regime. By contrast, House Judiciary Democrats argue the Digital Services Act includes procedural safeguards, judicial oversight of content moderation, and democratic accountability within the EU.
Will the Act make Brussels the new “sheriff of the digital public square”? Could it export European hate speech laws—which have at times been used against individuals peacefully expressing their views—beyond Europe? And what steps can governments, companies, and citizens take to safeguard free expression online?
Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on the EU, the Digital Services Act, and freedom of expression as we consider whether the United States should support—or oppose—the Act.
Featuring:

Stéphane Bonichot, Partner, Briard Bonichot & Associés
Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International
Dr. John Rosenthal, Independent scholar and journalist
Berin Szóka, President, TechFreedom
Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67971788Wed, 01 Oct 2025 15:29:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe European Union’s Digital Services Act applies to digital platforms and service providers offering services to users in the EU, regardless of where the company is based—including U.S. companies. EU officials contend the Digital...EU officials contend the Digital Services Act is needed to protect democracy from misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech online. Regulators in Brussels promise it will create a safer digital space by holding platforms such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and X accountable for policing these categories. Service providers that fail to comply risk fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue, restricted access to the EU market, or suspension of operations.
House Judiciary Republicans recently issued a report warning that European regulators could use the Digital Services Act to chill speech, suppress political dissent, and establish a global censorship regime. By contrast, House Judiciary Democrats argue the Digital Services Act includes procedural safeguards, judicial oversight of content moderation, and democratic accountability within the EU.
Will the Act make Brussels the new “sheriff of the digital public square”? Could it export European hate speech laws—which have at times been used against individuals peacefully expressing their views—beyond Europe? And what steps can governments, companies, and citizens take to safeguard free expression online?
Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on the EU, the Digital Services Act, and freedom of expression as we consider whether the United States should support—or oppose—the Act.
Featuring:

Stéphane Bonichot, Partner, Briard Bonichot & Associés
Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International
Dr. John Rosenthal, Independent scholar and journalist
Berin Szóka, President, TechFreedom
Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law]]>3769free speech & election law,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-olivier-v-city-of-brandon--67953284The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Featuring:

Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67953284Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyGabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently...The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Featuring:

Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP]]>3171free speech & election law,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-dinner-table-action-v-schneider--67780322
Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
(Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67780322Tue, 16 Sep 2025 15:33:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The...
Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
(Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC]]>2665free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-miller-v-mcdonald--67765727Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.
The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.
Featuring:

Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General
(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67765727Mon, 15 Sep 2025 13:55:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyAll fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions...Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.
The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.
Featuring:

Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General
(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas]]>3128first amendment,healthcare,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/state-level-remedies-for-the-housing-crisis--67736523Join us for this discussion on the merits or pitfalls of the range of possible state-level remedies for the housing crisis.
Featuring:

James Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Pacific Legal Foundation
Christopher Elmendorf, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
David Schleicher, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School
(Moderator) Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67736523Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:45:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyMany areas of the country are beset by serious housing shortages. State-level regulatory policies such as exclusionary zoning and other restrictions on construction are, according to some analysts, major causes of the crisis. A variety of possible...Join us for this discussion on the merits or pitfalls of the range of possible state-level remedies for the housing crisis.
Featuring:

James Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Pacific Legal Foundation
Christopher Elmendorf, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
David Schleicher, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School
(Moderator) Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>4105administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,property lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ethics-cle-2025-recent-developments-in-legal-ethics-professional-responsibility--67695327CLE Info
If you are not seeking CLE credit for participating in this webinar, you may register free of charge.
Featuring:

Hon. David Cunanan, Independent Bar Council, Arizona; Former Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona
John J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Cost:

No CLE - Free
CLE (Member) - $25
CLE (Non-Member) - $50

To register, click the link at the top of the page.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67695327Tue, 09 Sep 2025 23:04:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this CLE webinar, David Cunanan, John J. Park, and Phillip Sechler will discuss recent important developments in the realm of legal ethics and professional responsibility, including the recent adoption of changes to an Arizona rule restricting who...CLE Info
If you are not seeking CLE credit for participating in this webinar, you may register free of charge.
Featuring:

Hon. David Cunanan, Independent Bar Council, Arizona; Former Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona
John J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Cost:

No CLE - Free
CLE (Member) - $25
CLE (Non-Member) - $50

To register, click the link at the top of the page.]]>3661professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-tuesday-s-google-search-remedy-decision--67695276Featuring:

Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Ashley Baker, Executive Director, The Committee for Justice
Kathleen W. Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust Institute
Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley LLP
(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67695276Tue, 09 Sep 2025 23:02:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyOne year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta held that “Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”, and, in doing so, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Judge...Featuring:

Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Ashley Baker, Executive Director, The Committee for Justice
Kathleen W. Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust Institute
Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley LLP
(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP]]>5596corporations,federal courts,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-first-choice-women-s-resource-centers-inc-v-platkin--67694225First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.
On June 16th, 2025, the Supreme Court granted cert to consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67694225Tue, 09 Sep 2025 20:31:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names...First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.
On June 16th, 2025, the Supreme Court granted cert to consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law]]>2488first amendment,healthcare,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-the-harm-esa-rulemaking-after-loper-bright--67690127



Featuring:
Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Senior Fellow, California Environmental Law and Policy Center; and Director, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67690127Tue, 09 Sep 2025 14:10:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn April, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to rescind a regulation defining the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition against “harm” to an endangered species to include destruction and modification of habitat. That regulation...



Featuring:
Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Senior Fellow, California Environmental Law and Policy Center; and Director, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center]]>3408administrative law & regulatio,environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-little-v-hecox-and-west-virginia-v-b-p-j--67636594The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.
Featuring:

Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67636594Thu, 04 Sep 2025 18:47:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a...The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.
Featuring:

Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education]]>3167civil rights,fourteenth amendment,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/after-drummond-what-s-next-in-the-debate-over-religious-charter-schools--67621624Featuring:

Rachel Laser, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Prof. John A. Meiser, Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) 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/67621624Wed, 03 Sep 2025 18:12:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of whether the operation of charter schools by religious entities was constitutionally permissible (or even required). The Court deadlocked 4-4,...Featuring:

Rachel Laser, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Prof. John A. Meiser, Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) 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]]>3711education policy,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ethics-or-ideology-bar-associations-and-the-boundaries-of-professional-discipline--67594438Are these proceedings neutral applications of ethical standards, or do they reflect growing pressure to use professional discipline as a political weapon? What procedural and constitutional safeguards exist to protect the federal government from state licensing authorities and to protect lawyers against viewpoint discrimination? Are these tools sufficient? How should courts, bar associations, and the legal academy understand their roles in preserving both public trust and ideological diversity within the profession?

Featuring:

James M. Burnham, Founder and Managing Partner, King Street Legal, PLLC
Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Gene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal Foundation
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Denise M. Harle, Clinical Professor and Director of the First Amendment Clinic, Florida State University College of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67594438Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:26:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyAcross the country, bar associations are increasingly at the center of legal and political controversy. Recent disciplinary proceedings—such as efforts by the DC Bar to disbar Acting OIRA Administrator Jeffrey Clark, ethics complaints against...Are these proceedings neutral applications of ethical standards, or do they reflect growing pressure to use professional discipline as a political weapon? What procedural and constitutional safeguards exist to protect the federal government from state licensing authorities and to protect lawyers against viewpoint discrimination? Are these tools sufficient? How should courts, bar associations, and the legal academy understand their roles in preserving both public trust and ideological diversity within the profession?

Featuring:

James M. Burnham, Founder and Managing Partner, King Street Legal, PLLC
Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Gene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal Foundation
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Denise M. Harle, Clinical Professor and Director of the First Amendment Clinic, Florida State University College of Law]]>3769professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/does-one-size-fit-all-qualified-immunity-inside-and-outside-split-second-policing-decisions--67545128How should we think about qualified immunity in the policing context versus other government contexts, particularly when officials are not acting under urgent time pressure? Should there be a single, uniform standard, or should the doctrine be tailored to the circumstances faced by the defendant? And if tailoring is appropriate, should that responsibility rest with the political branches rather than the courts?
Join us for a discussion on the origins, evolution, and future of qualified immunity—and bring your questions.
Featuring:

Elliott Averett, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
William Most, Attorney, Most & Associates
(Moderator) Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67545128Thu, 28 Aug 2025 18:13:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyQualified immunity shields all government officials from suit when the constitutional rights they violate are not “clearly established.” Yet the public conversation often centers on police officers. Supreme Court cases on the doctrine...How should we think about qualified immunity in the policing context versus other government contexts, particularly when officials are not acting under urgent time pressure? Should there be a single, uniform standard, or should the doctrine be tailored to the circumstances faced by the defendant? And if tailoring is appropriate, should that responsibility rest with the political branches rather than the courts?
Join us for a discussion on the origins, evolution, and future of qualified immunity—and bring your questions.
Featuring:

Elliott Averett, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
William Most, Attorney, Most & Associates
(Moderator) Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>3916civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-etienne-v-ferguson--67545118This webinar will examine the passage of Washington’s Senate Bill 5375, the historical and theological significance of confession, the constitutional protections afforded by the free exercise and establishment clauses, and the concerns of some that religious practices could be commandeered in service to the state’s police power. The discussion will also address whether the law unconstitutionally targets Catholic clergy and whether the state’s interest in child protection can supersede the religious obligation of priests to maintain absolute confidentiality, under penalty of excommunication.
Our guests will consider the delicate relationship between religious liberty and state power in this high-stakes case.
Featuring:

Matthew Martens, Partner, WilmerHale LLP
(Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67545118Thu, 28 Aug 2025 18:11:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe ongoing case of Etienne v. Ferguson raises profound questions about the interplay between religious liberty and state authority, particularly regarding Catholic confession, which centuries-old religious doctrine deems as absolutely confidential....This webinar will examine the passage of Washington’s Senate Bill 5375, the historical and theological significance of confession, the constitutional protections afforded by the free exercise and establishment clauses, and the concerns of some that religious practices could be commandeered in service to the state’s police power. The discussion will also address whether the law unconstitutionally targets Catholic clergy and whether the state’s interest in child protection can supersede the religious obligation of priests to maintain absolute confidentiality, under penalty of excommunication.
Our guests will consider the delicate relationship between religious liberty and state power in this high-stakes case.
Featuring:

Matthew Martens, Partner, WilmerHale LLP
(Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute]]>2892first amendment,religious liberties,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/defining-antisemitism-a-debate-on-free-speech-and-civil-rights--67518845Featuring:

William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67518845Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:06:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyCongress is currently debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing civil rights laws. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial tool for combating...Featuring:

William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP]]>3614civil rights,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/legislative-or-executive-the-curious-case-of-the-library-of-congress--67444009This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.
Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers.

Featuring:
Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
[Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67444009Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:45:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights by President Trump raises fundamental questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority and the constitutional status of these offices. Do these...This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.
Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers.

Featuring:
Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
[Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr]]>3628article i initiative,federalism & separation of pow,intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-patent-eligibility-reform-act-clarifying-patent-eligibility-for-the-u-s-patent-system--67443965The panel brings together top voices in patent law: David Jones, Executive Director at High Tech Alliance; Joseph Matal, Principal at Clear IP; Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion; and Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. The conversation will be moderated by Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development.
Join this webinar to explore how PERA seeks to reform the framework for determining what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection in the United States.

Featuring:
David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP LLC
Hon. Kathleen M. O'Malley, Former Federal Circuit Judge
Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion
[Moderator] Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67443965Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:42:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin the Federalist Society for a discussion on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), legislation aimed at clarifying and restoring patent eligibility in the United States. Specifically, the bill seeks to restore patent eligibility to...The panel brings together top voices in patent law: David Jones, Executive Director at High Tech Alliance; Joseph Matal, Principal at Clear IP; Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion; and Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. The conversation will be moderated by Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development.
Join this webinar to explore how PERA seeks to reform the framework for determining what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection in the United States.

Featuring:
David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP LLC
Hon. Kathleen M. O'Malley, Former Federal Circuit Judge
Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion
[Moderator] Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development]]>3629intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-a-labor-court-replace-the-adjudication-function-of-the-nlrb--67304154In hopes of remedying the alleged policy oscillation and partisan interference with the Board’s decision-making, Professor Estreicher, Professor David Sherwyn, and G. Roger King have proposed establishing an Article I labor court to replace the five-member National Labor Relations Board. This panel will discuss the current state of the National Labor Relations Board and the potential merits of replacing the Board with an Article I labor court.
Featuring:

Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law; Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of Law
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC; Former General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board
Prof. David Sherwyn, Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Hotel Administration
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67304154Fri, 08 Aug 2025 16:52:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has come under increasing criticism, with some accusing it of constantly reversing precedent, especially in cases involving labor policy issues. Professor Sam Estreicher of the NYU School of Law describes this...In hopes of remedying the alleged policy oscillation and partisan interference with the Board’s decision-making, Professor Estreicher, Professor David Sherwyn, and G. Roger King have proposed establishing an Article I labor court to replace the five-member National Labor Relations Board. This panel will discuss the current state of the National Labor Relations Board and the potential merits of replacing the Board with an Article I labor court.
Featuring:

Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law; Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of Law
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC; Former General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board
Prof. David Sherwyn, Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Hotel Administration
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>5067administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-tools-in-civil-rights-cases--67258436Featuring:

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy Center
Marc Greendorfer, Co-Founder and President, Zachor Legal Institute
Robert Shibley, Special Counsel, Campus Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Marc Stern, Chief Legal Officer, American Jewish Committee
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67258436Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:19:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent months, a number of new legal theories and tools have been proposed – some prominently used – in civil rights cases, many involving anti-Semitism in higher education. What legal mechanisms are available against universities,...Featuring:

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy Center
Marc Greendorfer, Co-Founder and President, Zachor Legal Institute
Robert Shibley, Special Counsel, Campus Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Marc Stern, Chief Legal Officer, American Jewish Committee
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>3483administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/labor-law-without-a-labor-board--67179027Featuring:

Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67179027Tue, 29 Jul 2025 17:53:14 +0000The Federalist SocietySince January 2025, the National Labor Relations Board has had only two sitting members—one less than necessary for a quorum. When it lacks a quorum, the Board can’t do things like resolve alleged unfair labor practices or rule on...Featuring:

Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>3777administrative law & regulatio,federalism & separation of pow,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/current-issues-in-church-autonomy-doctrine-categorical-immunity-collateral-order-doctrine-and-neutral-principles-of-law--67157078Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.
Featuring:

Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law
L. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67157078Mon, 28 Jul 2025 18:52:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a...Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.
Featuring:

Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law
L. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas]]>4474first amendment,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-ftc-v-meta--67104301Featuring:

Slade Bond, Chair, Public Policy and Legislative Affairs Practice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67104301Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:47:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe outcome of FTC v. Meta could reshape the social media landscape as well as U.S. merger policy. For the first time, the government is seeking to unwind two acquisitions more than a decade old, Facebook's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp...Featuring:

Slade Bond, Chair, Public Policy and Legislative Affairs Practice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3853corporations,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-case-for-restore-injunctions-patents-and-the-future-of-innovation--67104285The webinar will explore how the RESTORE Act seeks to rebalance the patent system in favor of property rights. Whether you're a policymaker, practitioner, or academic, don’t miss this opportunity to hear from leading experts on one of the most consequential patent reform efforts in recent history.
Featuring:

Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Chris Storm, IP Legal Director, Uber
Moderator: Judge Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67104285Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:46:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin the Federalist Society for a timely and compelling discussion on the RESTORE Act, legislation aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision and reinstating the presumptive right to injunctions for patent holders....The webinar will explore how the RESTORE Act seeks to rebalance the patent system in favor of property rights. Whether you're a policymaker, practitioner, or academic, don’t miss this opportunity to hear from leading experts on one of the most consequential patent reform efforts in recent history.
Featuring:

Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Chris Storm, IP Legal Director, Uber
Moderator: Judge Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

--
To register, click the link above.]]>4184intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-medicare-drug-pricing-negotiations--67019805
Featuring:

Ashley C. Parrish, Partner, King & Spalding, LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67019805Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:34:17 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin the Federalist Society for a webinar on the ongoing legal challenges to the Biden-era Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, a component of the Inflation Reduction Act. Ashley Parrish, Partner at King & Spalding, will provide an analysis of...
Featuring:

Ashley C. Parrish, Partner, King & Spalding, LLP]]>2457administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-trump-v-casa-inc--67014815On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The Court granted the government’s applications for a partial stay of these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and future implications.
Featuring:

Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP


--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67014815Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:44:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful...On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The Court granted the government’s applications for a partial stay of these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and future implications.
Featuring:

Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP


--
To register, click the link above.]]>3462federalism & separation of pow,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fcc-council-on-national-security--66988728Featuring:

Adam Chan, Director, FCC Council on National Security
Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66988728Tue, 15 Jul 2025 18:36:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyEarly in his Chairmanship, Federal Communications Chair Chairman Brendan Carr established a new Council for National Security within the agency. The council aims to "leverage the full range of the Commission’s regulatory, investigatory, and...Featuring:

Adam Chan, Director, FCC Council on National Security
Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP]]>3180international & national secur,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-conversation-on-the-right-a-potential-solution-to-title-ix-regulatory-whiplash--67074578
Tyler W. Coward, Lead Counsel, Government Affairs, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Paul F. Zimmerman, Senior Counsel, Policy & Regulatory, Defense of Freedom Institute
(Moderator) Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/67074578Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyTitle IX's guarantee against discrimination on the basis of sex in education has been the subject of intensely differing Executive Branch interpretations over the years. These disputes include fundamental disagreements over the meaning of the word...
Tyler W. Coward, Lead Counsel, Government Affairs, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Paul F. Zimmerman, Senior Counsel, Policy & Regulatory, Defense of Freedom Institute
(Moderator) Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute
]]>3647administrative law & regulatio,education policy,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-the-federal-government-rely-on-competitive-markets-to-price-electricity--66985357The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency established by Congress, plays a central role in this space. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC oversees the interstate transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and is responsible for reviewing, approving, and enforcing NERC’s reliability standards.
Nearly 30 years ago, FERC fundamentally changed how it regulates the electric power industry. Did those changes contribute to the growing risks to the future reliability of the U.S. electric power system we now face? Or have they helped prevent even greater problems? Most importantly, what should federal electric regulation look like going forward?
Join us for a dynamic and in-depth conversation with two seasoned experts as they explore these critical questions about the future of electricity regulation in the United States.
Featuring:

John Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia
Ari Peskoe, Director, Electricity Law Initiative, Harvard Law School
(Moderator) Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66985357Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:50:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the past decade, electricity prices for consumers have risen by more than 22% on average. At the same time, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)—the international body responsible for setting reliability and security...The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency established by Congress, plays a central role in this space. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC oversees the interstate transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and is responsible for reviewing, approving, and enforcing NERC’s reliability standards.
Nearly 30 years ago, FERC fundamentally changed how it regulates the electric power industry. Did those changes contribute to the growing risks to the future reliability of the U.S. electric power system we now face? Or have they helped prevent even greater problems? Most importantly, what should federal electric regulation look like going forward?
Join us for a dynamic and in-depth conversation with two seasoned experts as they explore these critical questions about the future of electricity regulation in the United States.
Featuring:

John Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia
Ari Peskoe, Director, Electricity Law Initiative, Harvard Law School
(Moderator) Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law]]>3648cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-training-vs-copyright-law-updates-from-the-copyright-office-and-the-courts--66917898On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives.
Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue.
Featuring:

Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
Regan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media Alliance
Moderator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66917898Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:38:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhether AI training and generation is a fair use under copyright law puts two important American business sectors in opposition, and each looks to the various branches of the federal government for answers. Fundamentally, essentially all training of...On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives.
Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue.
Featuring:

Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
Regan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media Alliance
Moderator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law]]>3763intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton--66917412Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025.
On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech.
Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be.
Featuring:

Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66917412Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:09:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyFree Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerned Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and...Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025.
On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech.
Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be.
Featuring:

Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights]]>2731free speech & election law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/20-years-later-kelo-v-city-of-new-london--66897002Featuring:

Prof. Peter Byrne, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law; Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program; Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Resource Center, Georgetown Law Center
Wesley W. Horton, Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP
Tim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66897002Tue, 08 Jul 2025 13:04:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when it condemned private residential lots and transferred them to commercial developers to...Featuring:

Prof. Peter Byrne, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law; Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program; Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Resource Center, Georgetown Law Center
Wesley W. Horton, Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP
Tim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3599cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-diamond-alternative-energy-llc-v-environmental-protection-agency--66896974In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.
This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.
Featuring:

Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
Moderator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66896974Tue, 08 Jul 2025 13:00:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions...In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.
This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.
Featuring:

Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
Moderator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3362environmental & energy law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/does-board-law-matter-after-loper-bright--66884233Featuring:

Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law
Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
(Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66884233Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:31:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyAdministrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh...Featuring:

Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law
Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
(Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC]]>3709administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-mahmoud-v-taylor--66884209In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.
Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Join us for a breakdown of this decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66884209Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:29:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyMahmoud v. Taylor concerns the question of whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs. In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School...In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.
Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Join us for a breakdown of this decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law]]>3126education policy,litigation,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-federal-communications-commission-v-consumers-research--66929991 Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.
Featuring:

Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLP
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute



--
To register, click the link above.
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66929991Thu, 03 Jul 2025 18:00:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on... Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.
Featuring:

Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLP
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute



--
To register, click the link above.
]]>2636constitution,federalism & separation of pow,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-legal-developments-surrounding-tithing-and-religious-donations--66841529Featuring:

Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Dr. James C. Phillips, Associate Professor & Director, Constitutional Government Initiative, Wheatley Institute, Brigham Young University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66841529Wed, 02 Jul 2025 20:42:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent years, a flurry of lawsuits has been launched nationwide against religious organizations, raising fraud and other claims related to tithing and church donations. These challenges generally argue that church leaders falsely claimed they would...Featuring:

Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Dr. James C. Phillips, Associate Professor & Director, Constitutional Government Initiative, Wheatley Institute, Brigham Young University]]>3698religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-fuld-v-palestine-liberation-organization--66900975 Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.
Featuring:

Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66900975Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025... Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.
Featuring:

Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP
]]>2853administrative law & regulatio,international & national secur,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-medina-v-planned-parenthood-south-atlantic--66820506
Featuring:

John J. Bursch, Senior Counsel and VP, Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom
Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Partner, Lehotsky Keller
Moderator: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66820506Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:30:00 +0000The Federalist Societyin July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to end the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no...
Featuring:

John J. Bursch, Senior Counsel and VP, Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom
Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Partner, Lehotsky Keller
Moderator: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom
]]>2243federalism & separation of pow,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-epa-v-calumet-shreveport-refining-llc-and-oklahoma-v-epa--66763330The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.
In Calumet, the Court ruled 7-2 that the “EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.” Similarly, in Oklahoma, the Court ruled 8-0 that “EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah state implementation plans are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional court of appeals.” Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer a breakdown of these decisions.
Featuring:

James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66763330Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:04:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court released its decisions for two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). Decided...The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.
In Calumet, the Court ruled 7-2 that the “EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.” Similarly, in Oklahoma, the Court ruled 8-0 that “EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah state implementation plans are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional court of appeals.” Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer a breakdown of these decisions.
Featuring:

James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney

--
To register, click the link above.]]>2515environmental & energy law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-united-states-v-skrmetti--66658545In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.
On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66658545Fri, 20 Jun 2025 20:13:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex. In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical...In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.
On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>2959civil rights,healthcare,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-kousisis-v-united-states--66608730Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.
Featuring:

Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66608730Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:11:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to...Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.
Featuring:

Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein]]>2300criminal law & procedure,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-smith-wesson-brands-inc-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos--66608640The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.
Featuring:

Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66608640Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:07:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by...The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.
Featuring:

Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>2765administrative law & regulatio,criminal law & procedure,international law & tradecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/proxy-plumbing-a-primer-for-the-coming-policy-debate--66608270Consider this a primer so that when the debate occurs you can follow it, and why some will vociferously seek to maintain the status quo while others will with equal force seek to disrupt it.
Featuring:

Lawrence Conover, Vice President, Special Advisor for Proxy & Corporate Actions, Broadridge
Hon. Troy Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLC
Matthew Thornton, Deputy General Counsel, Investment Company Institute
Moderator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66608270Wed, 18 Jun 2025 18:47:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe SEC has periodically examined the ecosystem governing public company shareholder communications and voting—the “proxy plumbing ecosystem”—and it is expected that the SEC will again review this area under soon-to-be SEC...Consider this a primer so that when the debate occurs you can follow it, and why some will vociferously seek to maintain the status quo while others will with equal force seek to disrupt it.
Featuring:

Lawrence Conover, Vice President, Special Advisor for Proxy & Corporate Actions, Broadridge
Hon. Troy Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLC
Matthew Thornton, Deputy General Counsel, Investment Company Institute
Moderator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3350corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/antitrust-in-the-college-sports-arena--66608252Featuring:

Prof. Jodi Balsam, Professor of Clinical Law, Brooklyn Law School
Erik Clark, Ohio Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation, Ohio Attorney General's Office
Rakesh Kilaru, Partner, Wilkinson Stekloff LLP
Moderator: Kaitlyn Barry, Associate, Baker McKenzie

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66608252Wed, 18 Jun 2025 18:46:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2020, several collegiate athletes filed suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) arguing that by both denying athletes compensation and preventing them from pursuing third-party deals using their names, images, or likenesses...Featuring:

Prof. Jodi Balsam, Professor of Clinical Law, Brooklyn Law School
Erik Clark, Ohio Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation, Ohio Attorney General's Office
Rakesh Kilaru, Partner, Wilkinson Stekloff LLP
Moderator: Kaitlyn Barry, Associate, Baker McKenzie

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3607corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/checks-and-balances-deregulation-based-on-supreme-court-rulings--66608794 Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”
This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.
Featuring:

John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for Impact
Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66608794Thu, 12 Jun 2025 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmong the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and... Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”
This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.
Featuring:

John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for Impact
Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director
]]>3905administrative law & regulatio,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/regulatory-reform-for-5g-deployment-infrastructure-and-policy-perspectives--66513063https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66513063Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:20:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe ubiquitous deployment of both wireless and wireline technology is critical to 5G and other next generation services. However, lengthy permitting processes, as well as burdensome NEPA and NHPA requirements, continue to slow infrastructure builds....3459telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-bournemouth-christchurch-and-poole-council-v-livia-tossici-bolt--66513019Featuring:


Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International


Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66513019Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:18:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn April, Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt was criminally convicted in a British court for offering consensual conversation in an abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth, England. The court found that she violated a Public Spaces Protection...Featuring:


Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International


Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law]]>3469cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fireside-chat-with-ambassador-kay-bailey-hutchison--66512983Featuring:

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO; Former U.S. Senator, Texas
Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66512983Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:16:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyAmbassador Kay Bailey Hutchison served as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 2017-2021. From 1993-2013, she represented Texas in the U.S. Senate. Join us for a conversation about her life and career. Featuring: Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former...Featuring:

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO; Former U.S. Senator, Texas
Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida]]>2383international & national secur,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/digital-assets-market-structure-reform--66512923https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66512923Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:13:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyReforming the regulation of digital assets is a pressing issue across Congress, the Administration, the SEC, and the CFTC, profoundly impacting the expanding digital assets industry. Join the Federalist Society for a timely webinar delving into the...3717cryptocurrency,financial services & e-commerccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/emerging-issues-in-the-use-of-generative-ai-ethics-sanctions-and-beyond--66507275Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law.

Featuring:

Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLC
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66507275Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:33:26 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day...Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law.

Featuring:

Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLC
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas]]>3794professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-catholic-charities-bureau-inc-v-wisconsin-labor-industry-review-commission--66493562Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served.
On June 5th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, holding it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold a tax exemption on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because the organization did not proselytize or limit services to only fellow Catholics.
Join us for an expert analysis of the decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
(Moderator) 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/66493562Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:48:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyWisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated...Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served.
On June 5th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, holding it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold a tax exemption on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because the organization did not proselytize or limit services to only fellow Catholics.
Join us for an expert analysis of the decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
(Moderator) 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]]>1263religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-ames-v-ohio-department-of-youth-services--66493315On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.”
Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66493315Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:43:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyMarlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man,...On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.”
Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>2423civil rights,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-s-e-v-grey--66493286Free speech expert Professor Eugene Volokh and counsel Kayla Toney, who represents the families, will break down the opinion and discuss its ramifications for First Amendment jurisprudence.
Featuring:

Kayla Ann Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66493286Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:42:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyEncinitas Unified School District required two fifth-grade boys and their assigned kindergarten buddies to read and watch My Shadow is Pink and do an activity, pressuring the kindergartners to choose a color to represent their own shadows. The...Free speech expert Professor Eugene Volokh and counsel Kayla Toney, who represents the families, will break down the opinion and discuss its ramifications for First Amendment jurisprudence.
Featuring:

Kayla Ann Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law]]>3516education policy,free speech & election law,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-deemar-v-evanston-skokie-school-district-65--66493244Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar, a drama teacher in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois. She has challenged the District’s allegedly racially charged environment and practice of segregating students and staff. In January 2021, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But soon after President Biden took office, OCR withdrew that finding without explanation. Dr. Deemar filed a federal lawsuit and, in April 2025, submitted a new complaint to OCR.
Featuring:

Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66493244Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:38:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyIt is widely known that schools have instituted equity-focused policies, teacher training, and curriculum. Critics wonder whether this focus on equity is illegal and unconstitutional. Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar,...Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar, a drama teacher in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois. She has challenged the District’s allegedly racially charged environment and practice of segregating students and staff. In January 2021, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But soon after President Biden took office, OCR withdrew that finding without explanation. Dr. Deemar filed a federal lawsuit and, in April 2025, submitted a new complaint to OCR.
Featuring:

Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation]]>2275civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-significant-year-for-religious-liberty--66399414Join Mark Rienzi and Bill Saunders as they discuss these cases, their potential outcomes, and their future impact on religious liberty.
Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. 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
(Moderator) Prof. William L. Saunders, Director of the Program in Human Rights, Catholic University of America]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66399414Wed, 04 Jun 2025 19:10:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor the first time in years, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing questions of religious liberty and is doing so with three significant cases: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and...Join Mark Rienzi and Bill Saunders as they discuss these cases, their potential outcomes, and their future impact on religious liberty.
Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. 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
(Moderator) Prof. William L. Saunders, Director of the Program in Human Rights, Catholic University of America]]>3257first amendment,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-conversation-on-the-right-should-the-federal-government-shape-school-curriculum--66399340Join us for an expert discussion on these and related issues.
Featuring:

Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute
Roger Severino, Vice President of Domestic Policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education


***This program was originally scheduled for May 1st, but has been rescheduled to May 20th at 12pm ET***]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66399340Wed, 04 Jun 2025 19:02:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith Republicans holding control in Washington, a significant debate has emerged within conservative circles regarding the role of the federal government in primary and secondary education. Should conservatives leverage their electoral mandate to...Join us for an expert discussion on these and related issues.
Featuring:

Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute
Roger Severino, Vice President of Domestic Policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education


***This program was originally scheduled for May 1st, but has been rescheduled to May 20th at 12pm ET***]]>3564civil rights,education policy,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-seven-county-infrastructure-coalition-v-eagle-county-colorado--66395670This case was decided 8-0 on May 29. The Court ruled in favor of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, concluding that the federal environmental review process does not have to consider “downline” impacts. Join us in discussing the case and its decision with Mario Loyola and Austin Lipari, who wrote amicus briefs in support of petitioners.
Featuring:

Prof. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow for Law, Economics, and Technology, The Heritage Foundation; Professor, Florida International University
Moderator: Austin Lipari, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66395670Wed, 04 Jun 2025 14:07:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis case concerned the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface...This case was decided 8-0 on May 29. The Court ruled in favor of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, concluding that the federal environmental review process does not have to consider “downline” impacts. Join us in discussing the case and its decision with Mario Loyola and Austin Lipari, who wrote amicus briefs in support of petitioners.
Featuring:

Prof. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow for Law, Economics, and Technology, The Heritage Foundation; Professor, Florida International University
Moderator: Austin Lipari, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC

--
To register, click the link above.]]>2948environmental law & property r,federalismcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-barnes-v-felix--66385629Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.
The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.
Featuring:

Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66385629Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:05:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment. Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the...Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.
The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.
Featuring:

Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>2592criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-v-big-law--66385607Join us for a discussion panel where we will examine these and other key questions.
Featuring:

Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66385607Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:03:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyPresident Trump has issued several executive orders addressing alleged national security threats and discriminatory practices by some of the most prominent law firms in the country. Some of these firms and attorneys have challenged the EOs and actions...Join us for a discussion panel where we will examine these and other key questions.
Featuring:

Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together]]>3716free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-ftc-v-microsoft--66385540Featuring:

Allen P. Grunes, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Rahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & Case
Bilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom
Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66385540Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:54:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit challenging Microsoft's $69 billion purchase of “Call of Duty” maker Activision Blizzard, affirming the lower judge's order finding...Featuring:

Allen P. Grunes, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Rahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & Case
Bilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom
Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3436corporations,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-natural-property-rights-an-introduction--66385522Join this Talks with Authors program to discuss all this and more!
Featuring:

Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66385522Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:51:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyEric Claeys’ new publication, Natural Property Rights, presents a novel theory of property based on individual, pre-political rights. The book argues that a just system of property protects people's rights to use resources and also orders those...Join this Talks with Authors program to discuss all this and more!
Featuring:

Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3726environmental law & property r,property lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-trump-v-casa-inc--66171026Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.
Featuring:

Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66171026Tue, 20 May 2025 14:09:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful...Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.
Featuring:

Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3658federalism & separation of pow,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-trump-v-casa-inc--66170992Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case and the broader issues at play, including its implications for the separation of powers.
Featuring:

Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66170992Tue, 20 May 2025 14:05:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful...Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case and the broader issues at play, including its implications for the separation of powers.
Featuring:

Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP]]>2968federalism & separation of pow,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fireside-chat-with-elizabeth-odette--66170936Featuring:

Elizabeth Odette, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General; and Antitrust Task Force Chair, National Association of Attorneys General
Moderator: John Wiegand, Antitrust Attorney, Federal Trade Commission

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66170936Tue, 20 May 2025 14:02:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyElizabeth Odette is the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General and the Antitrust Task Force Chair for the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). Tune in to this conversation to...Featuring:

Elizabeth Odette, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General; and Antitrust Task Force Chair, National Association of Attorneys General
Moderator: John Wiegand, Antitrust Attorney, Federal Trade Commission

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3294corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-of-deposit-insurance-and-opposing-costs--66002169Featuring:


Dennis R. Adams, Principal, Dennis R. Adams Consulting; former CEO, American Share Insurance


Margaret E. Tahyar, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Moderator: Bryan Schneider, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66002169Thu, 08 May 2025 17:00:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyCurrently, the FDIC and NCUA—apart from a limited number of state credit unions—maintain a government-enforced duopoly on deposit insurance. This webinar will explore whether the existing framework should be preserved or reformed,...Featuring:


Dennis R. Adams, Principal, Dennis R. Adams Consulting; former CEO, American Share Insurance


Margaret E. Tahyar, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Moderator: Bryan Schneider, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP]]>3602financial services & e-commerccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/stablecoins-unpacked-law-policy-and-practice--66002139Featuring:

Anthony Apollo, Executive Director, Wyoming Stable Token Commission
Prof. Dan Awrey, Beth and Marc Goldberg Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Jerome Roche, Head of Legal for Blockchain, Crypto and Digital Currencies, Paypal Inc.
Sarah Wilson, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Circle
Moderator: Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Deputy General Counsel & Director, ING Holdings Corps; Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66002139Thu, 08 May 2025 16:57:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyStablecoins are important emerging financial products, and this webinar will explore their benefits, opportunities, and use cases. Additionally, it will identify risks, challenges, and concerns associated with stablecoins. The webinar will provide an...Featuring:

Anthony Apollo, Executive Director, Wyoming Stable Token Commission
Prof. Dan Awrey, Beth and Marc Goldberg Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Jerome Roche, Head of Legal for Blockchain, Crypto and Digital Currencies, Paypal Inc.
Sarah Wilson, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Circle
Moderator: Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Deputy General Counsel & Director, ING Holdings Corps; Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law]]>3572cryptocurrency,financial services & e-commerccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ad-it-again-a-second-google-antitrust-verdict--66002125Featuring:

Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Bilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom
Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66002125Thu, 08 May 2025 16:55:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 17, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law through the monopolization of digital advertisement. Google’s “exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher...Featuring:

Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Bilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom
Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3722corporations,regulatory transparency projec,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-feliciano-v-department-of-transportation--66170625 The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case.
Featuring:

Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/66170625Thu, 08 May 2025 16:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyFeliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if... The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case.
Featuring:

Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director
]]>2571administrative law & regulatio,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-oklahoma-statewide-charter-school-board-v-drummond--65861386The United States Supreme Court is hearing this case to address 1) if the teaching decisions of a private school are considered state action when the school contracts with the state to provide free education and 2) if a state is prohibited from excluding a religious school from its charter school program because of the Free Exercise Clause or if it can justify the exclusion under the Establishment Clause. Arguments are scheduled for April 30.
Featuring:

Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) 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/65861386Fri, 02 May 2025 19:41:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the...The United States Supreme Court is hearing this case to address 1) if the teaching decisions of a private school are considered state action when the school contracts with the state to provide free education and 2) if a state is prohibited from excluding a religious school from its charter school program because of the Free Exercise Clause or if it can justify the exclusion under the Establishment Clause. Arguments are scheduled for April 30.
Featuring:

Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) 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]]>3583education policy,first amendment,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ice-to-meet-you-greenland-u-s-acquisition-attempts--65796402Featuring:

Dr. Romain Chuffart, President and Managing Director, The Arctic Institute
Alexander Gray, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs, American Foreign Policy Counsel
Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, The Southern District of Florida]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65796402Tue, 29 Apr 2025 18:34:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyDiscussions about the United States acquiring Greenland have re-emerged in public discourse, particularly during the second Trump administration, highlighting the enduring strategic importance of the island. This webinar will provide crucial context...Featuring:

Dr. Romain Chuffart, President and Managing Director, The Arctic Institute
Alexander Gray, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs, American Foreign Policy Counsel
Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, The Southern District of Florida]]>2499constitution,foreign policy,international & national secur,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-art-of-the-tariff-the-trump-administration-and-trade--65796398Featuring:

Mark DiPlacido, Policy Adviser, American Compass
Prof. Gordon Hanson, Peter Wertheim Professor in Urban Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Moderator: Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65796398Tue, 29 Apr 2025 18:33:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin the Federalist Society for a debate on the role of tariffs during the Trump administration and their lasting impact on trade policy. This panel will explore the economic and legal implications of the administration’s tariff strategy, its...Featuring:

Mark DiPlacido, Policy Adviser, American Compass
Prof. Gordon Hanson, Peter Wertheim Professor in Urban Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Moderator: Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP]]>3291administrative law & regulatio,financial services & e-commerc,international law & tradecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-diamond-alternative-energy-llc-v-environmental-protection-agency--65795731In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from several states and fuel companies who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of their claims, finding that these parties did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This case now asks whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case, the argument, and its possible outcomes.
Featuring:

Mark Pinkert, Partner, Holtzman Vogel
Moderator: Mohammad Jazil, Partner, Holtzman Vogel

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65795731Tue, 29 Apr 2025 17:54:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions...In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from several states and fuel companies who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of their claims, finding that these parties did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This case now asks whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case, the argument, and its possible outcomes.
Featuring:

Mark Pinkert, Partner, Holtzman Vogel
Moderator: Mohammad Jazil, Partner, Holtzman Vogel

--
To register, click the link above.]]>2733environmental & energy law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-associated-press-v-budowich--65795066Join us for a litigation update on this case.
Featuring:

Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom at Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, VP of Legal Strategy at Stand Together]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65795066Tue, 29 Apr 2025 16:43:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn January, President Trump renamed the "Gulf of Mexico" the "Gulf of America." The Associated Press refused to follow that lead, keeping "Gulf of Mexico" in its style guide. The White House responded by denying AP reporters access to some White House...Join us for a litigation update on this case.
Featuring:

Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom at Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, VP of Legal Strategy at Stand Together]]>3513free speech & election law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-environmental-law-revolution-will-doge-and-the-second-trump-administration-achieve-lasting-positive-change--65806640 This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power.
Featuring:

Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP
Matthew Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law School
Sambhav Sankar, Senior Vice President of Programs, Earthjustice
Moderator: Jeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65806640Tue, 29 Apr 2025 16:00:04 +0000The Federalist SocietySince Inauguration Day, President Trump and his Cabinet have taken a range of important executive actions directly impacting environmental law and regulations with a laser focus on achieving domestic energy dominance – a centerpiece of the Trump... This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power.
Featuring:

Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP
Matthew Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law School
Sambhav Sankar, Senior Vice President of Programs, Earthjustice
Moderator: Jeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3632environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-mahmoud-v-taylor--65793012In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.
Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2025, and arguments are scheduled for April 22nd.
The question before the court is: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt-out?
Featuring:

Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65793012Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:02:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court will decide whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs. In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland,...In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.
Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2025, and arguments are scheduled for April 22nd.
The question before the court is: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt-out?
Featuring:

Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law]]>3211education policy,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-kennedy-v-braidwood-management-inc--65792950In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65792950Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:55:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments...In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute]]>3317administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,healthcare,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-conversation-on-the-right-the-future-of-the-sec-cryptocurrency--65705283Featuring:

Justin Clark, Civil Chief, Kentucky Office of the Attorney General
Paul N. Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLC
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Moderator: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Office, Paradigm]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65705283Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:51:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat does the new administration mean for cryptocurrency regulation and the balance of authority between the SEC and the states? Traditionally, Republican-led SECs and financial regulators have favored federal preemption of state authority. Under the...Featuring:

Justin Clark, Civil Chief, Kentucky Office of the Attorney General
Paul N. Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLC
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Moderator: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Office, Paradigm]]>3427corporations,financial services & e-commerc,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2025-mike-lewis-memorial-forum-the-russian-way-of-war--65705201This Federalist Society webinar will examine how these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, focusing on specific incidents and responsible actors. Panelists will also explore potential legal remedies and the prospects for war crimes prosecutions.
Mike Lewis served as a naval aviator before becoming a renowned law professor, respected by scholars and practitioners alike. A great friend of the Federalist Society, he spoke at numerous lawyer and student chapter events and was a dedicated member of the Executive Committee of the International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group honors his legacy with a webinar.
Featuring:

Prof. Michael A. Newton, Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law School
Moderator: Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65705201Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:44:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyRussia’s war against Ukraine has been marked by deliberate attacks on civilians, healthcare workers, and critical infrastructure. From targeting rescue personnel with follow-up strikes to direct attacks on hospitals and maternity wards,...This Federalist Society webinar will examine how these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, focusing on specific incidents and responsible actors. Panelists will also explore potential legal remedies and the prospects for war crimes prosecutions.
Mike Lewis served as a naval aviator before becoming a renowned law professor, respected by scholars and practitioners alike. A great friend of the Federalist Society, he spoke at numerous lawyer and student chapter events and was a dedicated member of the Executive Committee of the International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group honors his legacy with a webinar.
Featuring:

Prof. Michael A. Newton, Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law School
Moderator: Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3658foreign policy,international & national secur,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/reform-or-withdraw-the-united-states-and-the-future-of-the-united-nations--65705173Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the U.N. and its affiliated organizations remain a vital forum for diplomacy and that the United States should lead efforts to reform them rather than abandon them.
Should the United States push for structural changes within the U.N. and its affiliated entities, or would withdrawal better serve American sovereignty and foreign policy goals? What are the legal and geopolitical implications of either path? Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on international law, foreign policy, and constitutional governance as we explore whether the United States should help reform or quit the United Nations.

Featuring:

Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East Timo
Peter Yeo, Senior Vice President, UN Foundation; President, Better World Campaign
Moderator: John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65705173Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:42:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe United Nations was founded to promote peace, security, and international cooperation, but critics argue that it has become an inefficient bureaucracy that often works against U.S. interests. In particular, UN agencies and organizations – in...Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the U.N. and its affiliated organizations remain a vital forum for diplomacy and that the United States should lead efforts to reform them rather than abandon them.
Should the United States push for structural changes within the U.N. and its affiliated entities, or would withdrawal better serve American sovereignty and foreign policy goals? What are the legal and geopolitical implications of either path? Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on international law, foreign policy, and constitutional governance as we explore whether the United States should help reform or quit the United Nations.

Featuring:

Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East Timo
Peter Yeo, Senior Vice President, UN Foundation; President, Better World Campaign
Moderator: John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law]]>3531foreign policy,international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-martin-v-united-states--65705088In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether the law-enforcement proviso can overcome sovereign immunity and whether an innocent family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team, has a path to relief. Join us for an in-depth discussion on the implications of this case and the broader question of accountability for federal law enforcement.
Featuring: Patrick Jaicomo, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65705088Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:36:59 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen federal law enforcement raids the wrong home, do innocent homeowners have any legal recourse? The answer is more complicated than one might expect. Over the years, the Supreme Court has limited the ability to bring constitutional claims against...In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether the law-enforcement proviso can overcome sovereign immunity and whether an innocent family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team, has a path to relief. Join us for an in-depth discussion on the implications of this case and the broader question of accountability for federal law enforcement.
Featuring: Patrick Jaicomo, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>2510cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-case-of-mahmoud-khalil-free-speech-or-national-security--65704999Join us on April 1 at 11 AM EST for a conversation between Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute and Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their conversation will be moderated by Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.
Featuring:

Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute
Moderator: Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65704999Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:32:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyMahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green card holder, was detained by ICE on March 8 and faces deportation for his involvement in the protests and disruptions at Columbia University related to the war between Hamas and Israel. The U.S. government cites an...Join us on April 1 at 11 AM EST for a conversation between Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute and Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their conversation will be moderated by Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.
Featuring:

Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute
Moderator: Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.]]>3640free speech & election law,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/prosecution-laches-no-good-deed-goes-unpunished--65685112Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution.
In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.
This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.
Featuring:

Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLC
Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Gene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.
Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65685112Wed, 23 Apr 2025 18:59:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyProsecution laches is an infrequently used equitable doctrine that bars enforcement of a patent when the patentee has unreasonably delayed prosecution in a way that prejudices others. It is most commonly used by accused infringers as a defense in...Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution.
In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.
This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.
Featuring:

Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLC
Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Gene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.
Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3967intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-april-2025--65684470
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.
Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.


Featuring:

Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Prof. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Francesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section
(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65684470Wed, 23 Apr 2025 18:21:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s):...
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.
Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding...]]>5166administrative law & regulatio,education policy,federal courts,federalism & separation of pow,financial services & e-commerc,litigation,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-transparency-act-of-2025-patents-policy-and-legal-ethics--65685080 Featuring:

Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Courtney Quish, Managing Director, Intellectual Property Finance Group at Fortress Investment Group
Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents
Paul Taylor, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Kacie Donovan, Associate, Greenberg Traurig

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65685080Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPrompted by the reintroduction of federal Litigation Transparency Act legislation, this panel will address a variety of issues raised by litigation funding with a special focus on patent litigation. Panelists will provide an overview of the Act and... Featuring:

Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Courtney Quish, Managing Director, Intellectual Property Finance Group at Fortress Investment Group
Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents
Paul Taylor, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Kacie Donovan, Associate, Greenberg Traurig

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3591intellectual property,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-is-the-prosecutor-here-rule-48-a-and-the-michael-flynn-january-6-and-eric-adams-cases--65663875Featuring:

Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review
William Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & Associates
Moderator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

--
To resgister, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65663875Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:16:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.”...Featuring:

Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review
William Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & Associates
Moderator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

--
To resgister, click the link above.]]>3763criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of pow,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-bondi-v-vanderstok--65616407On March 26, 2025, a 7-2 Court ruled the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what its potential effects might be.
Featuring:

Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation


--
Note: this program has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/10/25, and will now be hosted on 04/11/25 at 12pm ET.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65616407Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:38:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyBondi v. VanDerStok concerned whether the ATF's 2022 update to its regulations under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which articulated that federal law requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of standard firearms also apply to "ghost...On March 26, 2025, a 7-2 Court ruled the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what its potential effects might be.
Featuring:

Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation


--
Note: this program has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/10/25, and will now be hosted on 04/11/25 at 12pm ET.]]>2783criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tracking-and-ending-religious-discrimination--65616070Featuring:

Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law and Religion and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law
(Moderator) 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/65616070Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:12:37 +0000The Federalist SocietyA new project sponsored by a coalition of organizations seeks to track the various ways that federal and state programs discriminate against religious participants in a range of funding programs despite a series of Supreme Court cases holding such...Featuring:

Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law and Religion and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law
(Moderator) 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]]>3763religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-weaponization-of-doj--65684230 These actions prompt the question: has the DOJ actually been weaponized, and if so, in what ways? What is the role of the DOJ in the criminal justice process, and what responsibility does it have as a part of the executive branch to represent the will of the president? Have the actions of both the past administrations in bringing cases against political opponents, seeking to dismiss charges from potential allies, and shielding friends and family from potential prosecution been a mis-use of the Department of Justice, or appropriate uses of executive discretion?
This panel will discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:

Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro & Singer
(Moderator) Stephen J. Demanovich, Special Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

--
This event is the second of four webinars centering on the theme Theories of Presidential Power, previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, which will be held on May 7, 2025.

Please note: this event has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/16 and will now be hosted 04/21 at 11am ET.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65684230Wed, 16 Apr 2025 16:00:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyHigh-profile politically adjacent actions (including prosecutions, pardons, & dismissals) from both the current and past administrations have inspired increasing concern over the potential weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice. This... These actions prompt the question: has the DOJ actually been weaponized, and if so, in what ways? What is the role of the DOJ in the criminal justice process, and what responsibility does it have as a part of the executive branch to represent the will of the president? Have the actions of both the past administrations in bringing cases against political opponents, seeking to dismiss charges from potential allies, and shielding friends and family from potential prosecution been a mis-use of the Department of Justice, or appropriate uses of executive discretion?
This panel will discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:

Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro & Singer
(Moderator) Stephen J. Demanovich, Special Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

--
This event is the second of four webinars centering on the theme Theories of Presidential Power, previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, which will be held on May 7, 2025.

Please note: this event has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/16 and will now be hosted 04/21 at 11am ET.]]>3575administrative law & regulatio,criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-fda-v-wages-and-white-lion-investments-l-l-c--65686118 On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space.
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
Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65686118Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:00:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnder the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in... On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space.
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
Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
]]>3616administrative law & regulatio,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/agency-independence-and-accountability-to-the-executive--65527016Featuring:

J. Howard Beales, III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University
Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University
Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65527016Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:31:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyPresident Trump’s February 18 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” Executive Order directs independent regulatory agencies to submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information...Featuring:

J. Howard Beales, III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University
Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University
Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3972administrative law & regulatio,corporations,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-oklahoma-v-epa-and-epa-v-calumet-shreveport-refining-llc--65526967The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.
What is the meaning and scope of this exception? How far may EPA go in picking where to litigate its final actions? And what does this mean for denials of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), small oil refineries seeking Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions, and other EPA actions affecting the regulated community? Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer their initial impressions following oral argument.
Featuring:

James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney


To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65526967Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:27:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 25th, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument to resolve two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067)....The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.
What is the meaning and scope of this exception? How far may EPA go in picking where to litigate its final actions? And what does this mean for denials of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), small oil refineries seeking Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions, and other EPA actions affecting the regulated community? Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer their initial impressions following oral argument.
Featuring:

James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney


To register, click the link above.]]>2442environmental & energy law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-california-wildfires-and-america-s-housing-challenges--65526923Some argue that this housing crisis has only been exacerbated by errant government policies like exclusionary zoning and restrictive permitting conditions because these stifle the production of affordable housing. Others contend, however, that these restrictions are necessary not only to promote the orderly development of California’s land, but also to help prevent and avoid destruction done by wildfires and other natural disasters.
Now, after so much property has been razed to the ground, how are California’s state and local governments addressing the needs of displaced landowners? What effect will Gov. Newsom’s emergency orders suspending the California Coastal Act’s requirements have on rebuilding? Will the California Coastal Commission comply with the Governor’s directives and how will it respond to rebuilding efforts? What implications will California’s response to the fires have on housing going forward?
Join a panel of expert scholars, Jennifer Hernandez, Ilya Somin, and Nolan Gray, who will address these questions and much more.
Speakers:

Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research, California YIMBY
Jennifer Hernandez, Partner, Holland & Knight
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Stephen Davis, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65526923Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:25:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow California’s state and local governments act in the wake of the devastating wildfires will be a harbinger of whether America can deal with its housing issues. California’s housing crisis was dire before the Southern California...Some argue that this housing crisis has only been exacerbated by errant government policies like exclusionary zoning and restrictive permitting conditions because these stifle the production of affordable housing. Others contend, however, that these restrictions are necessary not only to promote the orderly development of California’s land, but also to help prevent and avoid destruction done by wildfires and other natural disasters.
Now, after so much property has been razed to the ground, how are California’s state and local governments addressing the needs of displaced landowners? What effect will Gov. Newsom’s emergency orders suspending the California Coastal Act’s requirements have on rebuilding? Will the California Coastal Commission comply with the Governor’s directives and how will it respond to rebuilding efforts? What implications will California’s response to the fires have on housing going forward?
Join a panel of expert scholars, Jennifer Hernandez, Ilya Somin, and Nolan Gray, who will address these questions and much more.
Speakers:

Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research, California YIMBY
Jennifer Hernandez, Partner, Holland & Knight
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Stephen Davis, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>3529environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-medina-v-planned-parenthood-south-atlantic--65526718Featuring:

Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Moderator: Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65526718Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:10:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to terminate the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were...Featuring:

Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Moderator: Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3390federalism & separation of pow,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-henderson-and-parents-defending-education--65443309
In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025.

In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.
Featuring:

Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65443309Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:56:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that...
In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025.

In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.
Featuring:

Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC]]>3070free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-catholic-charities-bureau-inc-v-wisconsin-labor-industry-review-commission--65442123Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.
Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. Catholic Charities appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in December 2024.
Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior?
Featuring:

Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65442123Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:05:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost...Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.
Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. Catholic Charities appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in December 2024.
Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior?
Featuring:

Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit]]>3646first amendment,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-louisiana-v-callais--65289705
Featuring:

Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65289705Tue, 01 Apr 2025 17:39:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyLouisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later...
Featuring:

Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>3605free speech & election law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-delligatti-v-united-states--65289677Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.
Oral argument was heard by the Supreme Court in early November 2024, and on March 21, 2025, a 7-2 Court affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit below against Delligatti.
Join us for a discussion of this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65289677Tue, 01 Apr 2025 17:36:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyDelligatti v. United States concerned whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Known by some as the...Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.
Oral argument was heard by the Supreme Court in early November 2024, and on March 21, 2025, a 7-2 Court affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit below against Delligatti.
Join us for a discussion of this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law]]>2731criminal law & procedure,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-roots-applications-and-trajectory-of-the-church-autonomy-doctrine--65287043Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Prof. Leslie C. Griffin, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Branton J. Nestor, Associate, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65287043Tue, 01 Apr 2025 13:54:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe First Amendment’s Religion Clauses guarantee religious entities the freedom to make certain internal governance decisions without State interference. Supreme Court cases like Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952), Serbian Eastern Orthodox...Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Prof. Leslie C. Griffin, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Branton J. Nestor, Associate, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]]>3843first amendment,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-federal-communications-commission-v-consumers-research--65526889 The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—are now being challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case’s oral argument, delivered on March 26, 2025.
Featuring:

Prof. Chad Squitieri, Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of America
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65526889Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:00:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications and, as part of that, to maintain a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly... The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—are now being challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case’s oral argument, delivered on March 26, 2025.
Featuring:

Prof. Chad Squitieri, Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of America
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>2912federalism & separation of pow,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/unleashing-american-energy-at-ceq--65112811Less than four weeks later, CEQ issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on how to conform their NEPA practices to the President’s Executive Order and other factors. Less than a week after that, CEQ published an interim final rule removing its NEPA regulations. Among the potential intended impacts of these actions is more expeditious federal government reviews of environmental permits.
Even before these Executive Actions, courts had expressed concern over CEQ’s NEPA regulations. In November 2024, the D.C. Circuit held the CEQ regulations to be ultra vires. Marin Audubon v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). In February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota followed suit. Iowa v CEQ, No. 1:24-cv-00089-DMT-CRH, 2025 WL 598928 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025).
Join attorneys Mario Loyola and Ted Boling as they discuss these important developments in environmental law.
Featuring:

Ted Boling, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP
Mario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65112811Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:50:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn his first day back in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154 (Unleashing American Energy). Among numerous other objectives, this broad Executive Order directs the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to “expedite...Less than four weeks later, CEQ issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on how to conform their NEPA practices to the President’s Executive Order and other factors. Less than a week after that, CEQ published an interim final rule removing its NEPA regulations. Among the potential intended impacts of these actions is more expeditious federal government reviews of environmental permits.
Even before these Executive Actions, courts had expressed concern over CEQ’s NEPA regulations. In November 2024, the D.C. Circuit held the CEQ regulations to be ultra vires. Marin Audubon v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). In February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota followed suit. Iowa v CEQ, No. 1:24-cv-00089-DMT-CRH, 2025 WL 598928 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025).
Join attorneys Mario Loyola and Ted Boling as they discuss these important developments in environmental law.
Featuring:

Ted Boling, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP
Mario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney]]>3560administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy law,federalism & separation of pow,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/disinformation-in-broadcasting-and-the-public-interest-standard--65109832Featuring:

Bob Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIRE
David Gibber, Executive Vice President/Chief Legal Officer, Sinclair Broadcast Group
Daniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights
Moderator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, HWG LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65109832Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:47:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Communications Act of 1934 requires that licensees operate consistent with the “public interest convenience and necessity.” Broadcast licenses, held by broadcast TV and radio stations as trustees of the public’s airwaves, must...Featuring:

Bob Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIRE
David Gibber, Executive Vice President/Chief Legal Officer, Sinclair Broadcast Group
Daniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights
Moderator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, HWG LLP]]>3626cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-march-2025--65109019
Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.
Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.


Featuring:

Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel
Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Elizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Morgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65109019Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:02:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1)...
Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.
Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of...]]>5383administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,criminal law & procedure,election law,federal courts,federalism & separation of pow,international & national secur,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-the-federal-government-ban-at-home-distilling--65133762 Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.
This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.
Featuring:

Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/65133762Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAfter the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism... Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.
This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.
Featuring:

Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3505federalismcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-united-states-v-peterson--64981533George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part of an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigation, a search warrant was executed at his home. Among the items discovered was an unregistered suppressor. Peterson was indicted for possession of the unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). He filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the NFA's registration framework violated the Second Amendment and that the search by the ATF violated the Fourth Amendment so the evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed.
The district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana denied both motions. Peterson appealed and the Fifth Circuit heard argument on December 4, 2024. On February 6, 2025, it issued a decision affirming the lower courts denial.
Join us as we discuss this interesting case and its potential impact in the realm of firearms regulation.
Featuring:

Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association
(Moderator) Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64981533Wed, 19 Mar 2025 20:25:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn February 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Peterson, ruling that suppressors were not "firearms" and thus not subject to Second Amendment protection. George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm...George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part of an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigation, a search warrant was executed at his home. Among the items discovered was an unregistered suppressor. Peterson was indicted for possession of the unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). He filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the NFA's registration framework violated the Second Amendment and that the search by the ATF violated the Fourth Amendment so the evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed.
The district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana denied both motions. Peterson appealed and the Fifth Circuit heard argument on December 4, 2024. On February 6, 2025, it issued a decision affirming the lower courts denial.
Join us as we discuss this interesting case and its potential impact in the realm of firearms regulation.
Featuring:

Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association
(Moderator) Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister]]>3570criminal law & procedure,federal courts,second amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/do-foreign-states-deserve-due-process-minimum-contacts-and-the-future-of-international-arbitration--64975217While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks.
This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64975217Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:27:21 +0000The Federalist SocietyDevas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked...While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks.
This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.]]>3409due process,international & national secur,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/environmental-justice-dead-or-just-napping--64955376Featuring:

Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Horace Cooper, Chairman, Project 21 National Advisory Board, National Center for Public Policy Research
John C. Cruden, Principal, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
Matt Tejada, Senior Vice President, Environmental Health, NRDC
Moderator: John S. Irving, Partner, Earth & Water Law

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64955376Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:11:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyEnvironmental Justice - an effort to affirmatively address disproportionate pollution and environmental burdens borne by low-income and minority communities - grew from an Executive Order by President Clinton in 1994 through expanded efforts across...Featuring:

Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Horace Cooper, Chairman, Project 21 National Advisory Board, National Center for Public Policy Research
John C. Cruden, Principal, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
Matt Tejada, Senior Vice President, Environmental Health, NRDC
Moderator: John S. Irving, Partner, Earth & Water Law

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3770environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-environmental-protection-agency--64841729On March 4, 2025, the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.
Featuring:

Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64841729Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:52:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyCity and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency concerned whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination...On March 4, 2025, the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.
Featuring:

Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>1907environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-department-of-state-v-aids-vaccine-advocacy-coalition--64813104On February 25, 2025, a D.C. District judge ordered the Administration to issue a portion of the payments that it had previously sought to pause by the next day (that is, by 11:59 p.m. on February 26). The Trump Administration appealed to the Supreme Court requesting an administrative stay, which the Chief Justice granted on a temporary basis as the application was referred to the full Court. On March 5, 2025, a 5-4 Court vacated the stay granted by the Chief Justice, leaving in place the February 25 order (though it noted the deadline stated therein had passed and the lower court needed to give clarity as to the requirements that still remained for the Government) and the initial February 13 temporary restraining order which initially enjoined the Administration from enforcing its earlier directives to pause all aid payments.
Join us for a litigation update on this case as we discuss the various orders, the move by the Court to vacate the stay, and what may happen next.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Distinguished Visiting Scholar, School of Civic Leadership, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64813104Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:13:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the past couple of weeks, there have been several developments in the litigation surrounding the Trump Adminsitration’s directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. On February 25, 2025, a D.C. District judge...On February 25, 2025, a D.C. District judge ordered the Administration to issue a portion of the payments that it had previously sought to pause by the next day (that is, by 11:59 p.m. on February 26). The Trump Administration appealed to the Supreme Court requesting an administrative stay, which the Chief Justice granted on a temporary basis as the application was referred to the full Court. On March 5, 2025, a 5-4 Court vacated the stay granted by the Chief Justice, leaving in place the February 25 order (though it noted the deadline stated therein had passed and the lower court needed to give clarity as to the requirements that still remained for the Government) and the initial February 13 temporary restraining order which initially enjoined the Administration from enforcing its earlier directives to pause all aid payments.
Join us for a litigation update on this case as we discuss the various orders, the move by the Court to vacate the stay, and what may happen next.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Distinguished Visiting Scholar, School of Civic Leadership, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute]]>3370administrative law & regulatio,federal courts,federalism & separation of pow,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-wilcox-v-trump--64732521Member Wilcox responded by suing for reinstatement. A federal district court will hear arguments in the case on March 5. Join us that afternoon as Alex MacDonald, co-chair of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute, breaks down the case.
Featuring:

Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64732521Thu, 06 Mar 2025 15:45:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn late January, President Donald Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. The termination was controversial because Member Wilcox, like all Board members, was arguably protected from removal by the National Labor...Member Wilcox responded by suing for reinstatement. A federal district court will hear arguments in the case on March 5. Join us that afternoon as Alex MacDonald, co-chair of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute, breaks down the case.
Featuring:

Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>1792administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-figliola-v-the-school-board-of-the-city-of-harrisonburg--64732512Featuring:

Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Parental Rights, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64732512Thu, 06 Mar 2025 15:43:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Harrisonburg City school board enacted a policy that required school staff to affirm the board’s view on gender identity including when it conflicted with the staff’s own religious beliefs. Upon any child’s request, the school...Featuring:

Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Parental Rights, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation]]>2404civil rights,education policy,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/you-re-fired-trump-tenure-protection-and-the-future-of-humphrey-s-executor--64732482Will this ruling stand, and should it? Is it true that, as the Court reasoned in 1935, the Constitution does not confer an "illimitable power of removal" on the President? Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Dr. Dan Epstein, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University College of Law
Prof. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64732482Thu, 06 Mar 2025 15:39:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe recent flurry of firings in the federal government has sparked new questions surrounding the president’s removal power and its limits. Several lawsuits have now been filed over precisely these questions. These suits could bring an old case...Will this ruling stand, and should it? Is it true that, as the Court reasoned in 1935, the Constitution does not confer an "illimitable power of removal" on the President? Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Dr. Dan Epstein, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University College of Law
Prof. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3530federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-ames-v-ohio-department-of-youth-services--64717095The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.
Featuring:

Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64717095Wed, 05 Mar 2025 21:01:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyMarlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man...The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.
Featuring:

Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>2814civil rights,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-smith-wesson-brands-inc-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos--64843826 The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.
The district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers and Mexico appealed. The First Circuit agreed that while the protections of PLCAA were applicable to the manufacturer, they might still be liable under the predicate exception. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 4, 2025.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the case and analyze how oral arguments went before the Court.
Featuring:

Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64843826Wed, 05 Mar 2025 15:00:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, alleging, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican... The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.
The district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers and Mexico appealed. The First Circuit agreed that while the protections of PLCAA were applicable to the manufacturer, they might still be liable under the predicate exception. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 4, 2025.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the case and analyze how oral arguments went before the Court.
Featuring:

Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
]]>3013corporations,criminal law & procedure,international & national secur,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/doj-in-transition-what-may-be-coming-next--64692393Featuring:

Gregg N. Sofer, Partner, Husch Blackwell LLP
(Moderator) Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64692393Tue, 04 Mar 2025 14:15:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyPresident Trump and his Administration are moving quickly to focus on different priorities for and make reforms to the U.S. Department of Justice. This conversation, with a veteran of the Department who served in the transition for this new...Featuring:

Gregg N. Sofer, Partner, Husch Blackwell LLP
(Moderator) Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>3602criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-role-of-language-in-the-transgender-movement--64975149 Join May Mailman, former Legal Director at the Independent Women’s Forum, and feminist Kara Dansky, author of The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls, for an insightful discussion on the role of language in the transgender movement.
Featuring:

Kara Dansky, Author, The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls
May Mailman, Former Legal Director, Independent Women's Forum
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64975149Thu, 27 Feb 2025 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis program will explore key lessons learned on the role of language in shaping the gender debate, including the implications of replacing the term “sex” with “gender.” The speakers will examine where the feminist and... Join May Mailman, former Legal Director at the Independent Women’s Forum, and feminist Kara Dansky, author of The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls, for an insightful discussion on the role of language in the transgender movement.
Featuring:

Kara Dansky, Author, The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls
May Mailman, Former Legal Director, Independent Women's Forum
]]>2707culture,litigation,politics,security & privacycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-cerame-v-slack--64606822In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.
Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.
Featuring:

Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64606822Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:25:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in...In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.
Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.
Featuring:

Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston]]>2441free speech & election law,litigation,professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cryptocurrency-after-the-election--64566656Join leading experts for a timely discussion on the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for digital asset markets, innovation, and the broader financial system.
Featuring:

Hon. Dusty Johnson, U.S. House of Representatives, At-Large, South Dakota
Hon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, Wyoming
Hon. Summer Mersinger, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Hon. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Moderator: J.C. Boggs, III, Partner, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64566656Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:13:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyWill the 2024 election mark a decisive shift in how U.S. financial regulators approach cryptocurrency and other digital assets? Will the SEC continue its retroactive and reactive regulation, or will it establish clear rules, sensible disclosure...Join leading experts for a timely discussion on the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for digital asset markets, innovation, and the broader financial system.
Featuring:

Hon. Dusty Johnson, U.S. House of Representatives, At-Large, South Dakota
Hon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, Wyoming
Hon. Summer Mersinger, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Hon. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Moderator: J.C. Boggs, III, Partner, King & Spalding]]>3685cryptocurrency,financial services & e-commerc,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-the-future-of-the-corporate-transparency-act--64566615Join us as we delve into the constitutional controversies surrounding the CTA. Our speaker, Prof. Thomas Lee, was the lead lawyer in NSBA v. Yellen, the first of the CTA lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Alabama in November 2022. The district court issued a permanent injunction on March 1, 2024, igniting a wave of similar lawsuits, including Texas Top Cop Shop, where a nationwide preliminary injunction was granted in May 2024.
The Supreme Court is currently considering a stay application in Texas Top Cop Shop, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision on the government's appeal in NSBA v. Yellen remains pending. Prof. Lee will provide insights into these pivotal cases and their broader implications for federal regulatory authority and individual rights under the Constitution.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64566615Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:09:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a sweeping federal statute requiring individuals with significant interests in LLCs and other entities registered under state or tribal law to disclose personal information, unless explicitly exempt. This...Join us as we delve into the constitutional controversies surrounding the CTA. Our speaker, Prof. Thomas Lee, was the lead lawyer in NSBA v. Yellen, the first of the CTA lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Alabama in November 2022. The district court issued a permanent injunction on March 1, 2024, igniting a wave of similar lawsuits, including Texas Top Cop Shop, where a nationwide preliminary injunction was granted in May 2024.
The Supreme Court is currently considering a stay application in Texas Top Cop Shop, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision on the government's appeal in NSBA v. Yellen remains pending. Prof. Lee will provide insights into these pivotal cases and their broader implications for federal regulatory authority and individual rights under the Constitution.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law]]>3334litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-of-u-s-iran-policy--64566507Featuring:

Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Middle East Institute
Moderator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Director, National Security Institute; Assistant Professor of Law & Director, National Security Law & Policy Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64566507Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:02:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs President Donald Trump embarks on a second term, U.S. policy toward Iran stands at a crossroads. The Islamic Republic appears weaker and more isolated than ever, with its proxies severely damaged and domestic unrest threatening the regime’s...Featuring:

Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Middle East Institute
Moderator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Director, National Security Institute; Assistant Professor of Law & Director, National Security Law & Policy Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3492foreign policy,international law & tradecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rockets-pagers-and-targeted-strikes-law-of-war-issues-in-the-israeli-hezbollah-conflict--64566478Featuring:

Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Former Director of Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State
Prof. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights Clinic, Notre Dame Law School
Moderator: Daniel G. West, Managing Director, SCF Partners]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64566478Tue, 25 Feb 2025 16:58:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe international community has focused on the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas following Hamas’ massacre of civilians and taking of hostages on October 7th, 2023. However, after Hezbollah joined Hamas’ attack “in...Featuring:

Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Former Director of Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State
Prof. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights Clinic, Notre Dame Law School
Moderator: Daniel G. West, Managing Director, SCF Partners]]>3402foreign policy,international law & trade,law & economics,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/political-speech-of-retired-admirals-generals--64566434Join leading experts to examine the legal parameters of the persistent use of political speech by retired military officials in American politics.
Featuring:

Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
J. Daniel McCarthy, Federal Special Master, US District Court For The District Of Columbia
Moderator: Andrew Darlington, Director, Florida Office of Election Crimes and Security]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64566434Tue, 25 Feb 2025 16:54:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhat constitutional protections exist for retired admirals and generals commenting on political candidates, campaigns, and sitting presidents? What constitutes prohibited speech? What enforcement mechanisms exist for any such prohibited speech? What...Join leading experts to examine the legal parameters of the persistent use of political speech by retired military officials in American politics.
Featuring:

Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
J. Daniel McCarthy, Federal Special Master, US District Court For The District Of Columbia
Moderator: Andrew Darlington, Director, Florida Office of Election Crimes and Security]]>3378cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-kluge-v-brownsburg-community-school-corporation--64694411 The school district in Brownsburg, Indiana ordered Mr. Kluge to use incorrect pronouns, which he believes are a lie. The school moved to fire him when he expressed a religious objection—without considering any Title VII religious accommodations, as the law requires. Once Mr. Kluge suggested he use all students’ last names like a coach, the district relented. But school officials changed their minds when some students and teachers complained, saying no future accommodations would be allowed. They forced Mr. Kluge to either violate his religious beliefs with his own words, face termination, or resign.
Mr. Kluge resigned under protest and filed suit under Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, under Hardison’s more than a de minimise cost test for undue hardship. After the Supreme Court held in Groff that undue hardship requires more—a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer’s business, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. But the district court’s analysis did not change. Mr. Kluge’s case is now back before the Seventh Circuit, which will be one of the first appellate courts to grapple with Groff’s new standard.
Featuring:

David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64694411Tue, 25 Feb 2025 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhere should the line be drawn in the debate between the rights of persons to hold religious beliefs and transgender advocates when it comes to government policies? Whether teachers or others can be compelled to use names and pronouns for students who... The school district in Brownsburg, Indiana ordered Mr. Kluge to use incorrect pronouns, which he believes are a lie. The school moved to fire him when he expressed a religious objection—without considering any Title VII religious accommodations, as the law requires. Once Mr. Kluge suggested he use all students’ last names like a coach, the district relented. But school officials changed their minds when some students and teachers complained, saying no future accommodations would be allowed. They forced Mr. Kluge to either violate his religious beliefs with his own words, face termination, or resign.
Mr. Kluge resigned under protest and filed suit under Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, under Hardison’s more than a de minimise cost test for undue hardship. After the Supreme Court held in Groff that undue hardship requires more—a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer’s business, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. But the district court’s analysis did not change. Mr. Kluge’s case is now back before the Seventh Circuit, which will be one of the first appellate courts to grapple with Groff’s new standard.
Featuring:

David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
]]>3600education policy,free speech & election law,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-united-natural-foods-v-nlrb--64453068Featuring:

Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
(Moderator) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr., Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64453068Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:22:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis litigation update will discuss the United Natural Foods case, where a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel ordered the withdrawal of a Complaint issued against two unions, which occurred shortly after President Biden...Featuring:

Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
(Moderator) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr., Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP]]>3342administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-2025--64454782
Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.
Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.
Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.

Featuring:

Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Jonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute
Richard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLP
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64454782Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:30:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers,...
Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.
Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.
Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.

Featuring:

Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Jonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute
Richard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLP
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
]]>4711administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of pow,international law & trade,international & national secur,labor & employment law,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-federal-circuit-s-reliance-on-one-word-affirmances-under-rule-36-is-it-lawful--64732461 Featuring:

Joseph Cianfrani, Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP
Amit R. Vora, Special Counsel, Kasowitz Benson Torres
Moderator: Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64732461Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Circuit’s first Chief Judge, the Honorable Howard T. Markey, announced, “In our Court there will be an opinion explaining enough to tell you what the law is in every case.” He added, “We do not just render a... Featuring:

Joseph Cianfrani, Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP
Amit R. Vora, Special Counsel, Kasowitz Benson Torres
Moderator: Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3727due process,federal courts,intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/antitrust-and-ftc-reform-in-the-new-congress--64564009 Featuring:

Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary
Thomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
Lynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States Senate
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

--
To register, click on the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64564009Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2025, antitrust and consumer protection remain hot topics in the legal world as a new Congress and Administration begin. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss possible antitrust and Federal Trade Commission reforms in the 119th Congress. Featuring:... Featuring:

Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary
Thomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
Lynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States Senate
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

--
To register, click on the link above.]]>3753corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-dei-on-its-way-out--64435073
Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream!


Panel:


David Bernstein
Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values



Kimberly Hermann,
Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation



Prof. Yascha Mounk,
Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University;
Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations


Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education



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





---
Does DEI rise and fall due to cultural fads that tend to come and go, or is DEI mainly driven by substantive provisions of civil rights law that are much harder to unravel? Are DEI programs morphing from a primarily race-based focus to a gender and sex-based focus, or does their focus remain on race and ethnicity? This panel will discuss how DEI is impacting federal civil rights issues, consider federal, state, and local levels, and debate whether DEI has passed its high-water mark.


Featuring:


David Bernstein, Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values
Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations
Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64435073Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:25:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyDue to impending inclement weather this event has been converted to a webinar. Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream!...
Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream!


Panel:


David Bernstein
Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values



Kimberly Hermann,
Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation



Prof. Yascha Mounk,
Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University;
Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations


Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education



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





---
Does DEI rise and fall due to cultural fads that tend to come and go, or is DEI mainly driven by substantive provisions of civil rights law that are much harder to unravel? Are DEI programs morphing from a primarily race-based focus to a gender and sex-based focus, or does their focus remain on race and ethnicity? This panel will discuss how DEI is impacting federal civil rights issues, consider federal, state, and local levels, and debate whether DEI has passed its high-water mark.


Featuring:


David Bernstein, Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values
Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations
Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>5317civil rights,culture,fourteenth amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-amazon-the-nlrb-and-captive-audience-meetings--64382593However, in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 14, 2024), the National Labor Relations Board held that mandatory meetings where an employer expresses its views on unions violate the Act. The Board deemed such meetings unlawful, even if the views expressed during them do not independently constitute an unfair labor practice.
Bill Messenger and Roger King will examine the history of Section 8(c), the Board’s interpretation of its scope, and the potential outcome of the Board’s decision on appeal to the 11th Circuit.
Featuring:

William L. Messenger, Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64382593Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:41:34 +0000The Federalist SocietySection 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act states an employer’s communication is not an unfair labor practice if it does not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or a promise of a benefit. Historically, this provision was understood to...However, in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 14, 2024), the National Labor Relations Board held that mandatory meetings where an employer expresses its views on unions violate the Act. The Board deemed such meetings unlawful, even if the views expressed during them do not independently constitute an unfair labor practice.
Bill Messenger and Roger King will examine the history of Section 8(c), the Board’s interpretation of its scope, and the potential outcome of the Board’s decision on appeal to the 11th Circuit.
Featuring:

William L. Messenger, Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association]]>3416labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-mid-vermont-christian-school-v-saunders--64206680Featuring:

David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Eric W. Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64206680Wed, 05 Feb 2025 15:02:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyFrom the Olympics to San Jose State, each month we hear of new controversies where biological men are competing in women’s sports. Most of those situations relate to college, international, or public school competitions. But how do policies that...Featuring:

David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Eric W. Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law]]>3356first amendment,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-next-for-birthright-citizenship--64206530The next day, attorneys general from 22 states sued to block the Executive Order by asserting that the President is attempting to eliminate "a well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat.
Join this expert panel for a discussion of this important and timely topic.
Featuring:

Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
(Moderator) Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64206530Wed, 05 Feb 2025 14:43:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship which moves to end birthright citizenship practice which guarantees that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless...The next day, attorneys general from 22 states sued to block the Executive Order by asserting that the President is attempting to eliminate "a well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat.
Join this expert panel for a discussion of this important and timely topic.
Featuring:

Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
(Moderator) Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law]]>3649civil rights,fourteenth amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/remedies-in-presidential-removal-cases-a-shifting-landscape--64192449Featuring:

Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law Center
Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
(Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64192449Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:55:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases involving claims that an agency official is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, litigants can face an uphill climb to obtain...Featuring:

Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law Center
Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
(Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School]]>3486administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/searching-for-the-right-remedy-in-u-s-v-google--64191863This FedSoc Forum will discuss the decision, the remedies trial, and its future implications for other large companies, particularly within the tech sphere.
Featuring:

Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Geoffrey A. Manne, President & Founder, International Center for Law and Economics
Anant Raut, Public Advisor, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64191863Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:14:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn August 2024, a federal district court held that Google possesses monopolistic power over “general search” and “general search text advertising,” which Google illegally maintained through exclusive agreements. The DOJ has...This FedSoc Forum will discuss the decision, the remedies trial, and its future implications for other large companies, particularly within the tech sphere.
Featuring:

Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Geoffrey A. Manne, President & Founder, International Center for Law and Economics
Anant Raut, Public Advisor, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3578corporations,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-hemisphere-at-stake-china-cartels-and-the-path-forward-for-u-s-policy--64233838 As China deepens its presence in Latin America by owning nearly 40 ports—including a new mega port in Peru—and establishing intelligence posts in Cuba, U.S. policymakers face growing concerns over regional influence. Twenty-two Latin American countries have joined China's Belt and Road Initiative, amplifying Beijing's strategic foothold. Meanwhile, security threats persist closer to home, with cartel-driven predation undermining economic stability and enabling sophisticated cross-border operations, including the construction of tunnels linking Mexico to Texas and Arizona.
External pressures and internal instability present unique challenges for Latin American nations committed to democracy and capitalism. The United States must determine how best to support leaders seeking partnership while advancing shared interests. This panel will explore the nuanced historical considerations surrounding issues like the Panama Canal, the rise of cartels as major economic forces, and the effectiveness of prosperity zone initiatives.
As the new Trump Administration navigates these urgent regional dynamics, panelists will examine pressing U.S. interests and discuss strategies to strengthen alliances, counter malign influence, and promote regional stability.
Featuring:

Dr. Ryan C. Berg, Director, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Joseph M. Humire, Executive Director, Center for Secure Free Society
Moderator: Erick A. Brimen, CEO & Chairman of the Board, NeWay Capital and Próspera
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64233838Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs China deepens its presence in Latin America by owning nearly 40 ports—including a new mega port in Peru—and establishing intelligence posts in Cuba, U.S. policymakers face growing concerns over regional influence. Twenty-two Latin... As China deepens its presence in Latin America by owning nearly 40 ports—including a new mega port in Peru—and establishing intelligence posts in Cuba, U.S. policymakers face growing concerns over regional influence. Twenty-two Latin American countries have joined China's Belt and Road Initiative, amplifying Beijing's strategic foothold. Meanwhile, security threats persist closer to home, with cartel-driven predation undermining economic stability and enabling sophisticated cross-border operations, including the construction of tunnels linking Mexico to Texas and Arizona.
External pressures and internal instability present unique challenges for Latin American nations committed to democracy and capitalism. The United States must determine how best to support leaders seeking partnership while advancing shared interests. This panel will explore the nuanced historical considerations surrounding issues like the Panama Canal, the rise of cartels as major economic forces, and the effectiveness of prosperity zone initiatives.
As the new Trump Administration navigates these urgent regional dynamics, panelists will examine pressing U.S. interests and discuss strategies to strengthen alliances, counter malign influence, and promote regional stability.
Featuring:

Dr. Ryan C. Berg, Director, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Joseph M. Humire, Executive Director, Center for Secure Free Society
Moderator: Erick A. Brimen, CEO & Chairman of the Board, NeWay Capital and Próspera
]]>3680international law & trade,international & national secur,law & economics,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-nondelegation-doctrine-s-next-good-year--64045577On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”), which funds broadband service for rural areas and hospitals, schools, libraries, and low-income individuals, is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority. In the Communications Act, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to collect contributions, or payments, from certain providers of telecommunications. The FCC employs the private Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to administer certain aspects of USF, including calculating the contribution factor based on the needs of each program established by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act.
The Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as a panel of the Fifth Circuit, had previously upheld the constitutionality of the delegation of authority. And the FCC defended the Act against delegation challenges. It argued that the Communication Act provides an intelligible principle by which USF is to be administered and that USAC plays only a ministerial role.
But the July en banc ruling by the Fifth Circuit held this regulatory revenue-raising program unconstitutional. It acknowledged “grave” concerns that the Act may have unconstitutionally delegated the taxing power to the FCC to impose a contribution amount, or tax, on America’s telecommunications carriers, and ultimately paid by consumers. Then it similarly concluded there were serious constitutional concerns about the FCC’s subdelegation to private parties, most notably USAC’s role in determining the contribution amount that will be charged to telecommunications carriers. The Court’s ultimate holding, however, was that the combination of these delegations violated the nondelegation doctrine.
A petition for certiorari was granted on November 22, 2024. This roundtable will discuss this case and the broader legal issues it raises, including (1) is there a nondelegation doctrine?, (2) if there is, what should it look like?, and (3) how should the Supreme Court decide this case in light of the above discussion on the nondelegation doctrine.
Featuring:

Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLP
Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Grey PLLC
Prof. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law School
Prof. Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/64045577Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:05:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court is set to hear argument this term in a case raising both the nondelegation and private nondelegation doctrines. On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund...On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”), which funds broadband service for rural areas and hospitals, schools, libraries, and low-income individuals, is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority. In the Communications Act, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to collect contributions, or payments, from certain providers of telecommunications. The FCC employs the private Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to administer certain aspects of USF, including calculating the contribution factor based on the needs of each program established by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act.
The Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as a panel of the Fifth Circuit, had previously upheld the constitutionality of the delegation of authority. And the FCC defended the Act against delegation challenges. It argued that the Communication Act provides an intelligible principle by which USF is to be administered and that USAC plays only a ministerial role.
But the July en banc ruling by the Fifth Circuit held this regulatory revenue-raising program unconstitutional. It acknowledged “grave” concerns that the Act may have unconstitutionally delegated the taxing power to the FCC to impose a contribution amount, or tax, on America’s telecommunications carriers, and ultimately paid by consumers. Then it similarly concluded there were serious constitutional concerns about the FCC’s subdelegation to private parties, most notably USAC’s role in determining the contribution amount that will be charged to telecommunications carriers. The Court’s ultimate holding, however, was that the combination of these delegations violated the nondelegation doctrine.
A petition for certiorari was granted on November 22, 2024. This roundtable will discuss this case and the broader legal issues it raises, including (1) is there a nondelegation doctrine?, (2) if there is, what should it look like?, and (3) how should the Supreme Court decide this case in light of the above discussion on the nondelegation doctrine.
Featuring:

Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLP
Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Grey PLLC
Prof. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law School
Prof. Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3688cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-e-m-d-sales-inc-v-carrera--63938784On January 15th, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, reversed the Fourth Circut’s decision and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, it held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Featuring:

Michael J. O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63938784Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:22:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyE.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera concerns what standard of evidence the court should apply in cases of exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court decided that E.M.D. was liable for some employee overtime because it did not prove by...On January 15th, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, reversed the Fourth Circut’s decision and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, it held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Featuring:

Michael J. O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation]]>2470labor & employment law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-barnes-v-felix--63876937Is the correct rubric the "moment of threat" doctrine (which was applied by the Fifth Circuit here and has been adopted by several other circuits including the Second, Fourth, and Eighth), which considers only whether there was imminent danger creating a reasonable fear for one's life in the immediate moment(s) preceding the use of force? Alternately, should a court consider the "totality of circumstances" (along the lines of the precedent of the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits) when assessing if it was a justified use of force?
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63876937Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:30:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court is set to address a circuit split concerning the context courts should consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment. Is the correct rubric the "moment of threat" doctrine...Is the correct rubric the "moment of threat" doctrine (which was applied by the Fifth Circuit here and has been adopted by several other circuits including the Second, Fourth, and Eighth), which considers only whether there was imminent danger creating a reasonable fear for one's life in the immediate moment(s) preceding the use of force? Alternately, should a court consider the "totality of circumstances" (along the lines of the precedent of the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits) when assessing if it was a justified use of force?
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law]]>2780criminal law & procedure,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ethics-and-impact-of-true-crime-podcasting--63876742Featuring:

Alice Shih LaCour, Partner, Hilgers Graben PLLC; Co-Host, The Prosecutors Podcast
David Oscar Markus, Partner, Markus/Moss LLP; Host, For the Defense Podcast
(Moderator) Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63876742Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:25:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow should podcasters talk about crime in a way that informs the public while respecting the legal process and the rights of everyone involved? This question has taken on unprecedented importance now that anyone can become a citizen journalist by...Featuring:

Alice Shih LaCour, Partner, Hilgers Graben PLLC; Co-Host, The Prosecutors Podcast
David Oscar Markus, Partner, Markus/Moss LLP; Host, For the Defense Podcast
(Moderator) Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law]]>3475criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-out-of-africa-then-what--63855670Featuring:

Cameron Hudson, Senior Fellow, Africa Program, CSIS
Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law
Dr. Michael Rubin, Senior Fellow, AEI
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63855670Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:31:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast month, the last American troops left Niger, following withdrawal of U.S. troops in Chad last spring and from Somalia in 2021. Talks are underway for revived U.S. presence in Chad, as happened in Somalia in 2022, but there seems to be a larger...Featuring:

Cameron Hudson, Senior Fellow, Africa Program, CSIS
Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law
Dr. Michael Rubin, Senior Fellow, AEI
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3662international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-voices-in-civil-rights-how-universities-are-responding-to-sffa--63732056
Featuring:

Peter Abernathy, Judicial Law Clerk, 31st Circuit Court of Virginia
Samuel Gellen, Honor Law Graduate Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Leo O'Malley, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Anthony Pericolo, Associate, Desmarais LLP
(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63732056Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:05:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyInstitutions of higher education released demographic data for their first classes admitted after the Supreme Court's landmark decision Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College held that the Constitution prohibits the...
Featuring:

Peter Abernathy, Judicial Law Clerk, 31st Circuit Court of Virginia
Samuel Gellen, Honor Law Graduate Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Leo O'Malley, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Anthony Pericolo, Associate, Desmarais LLP
(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity]]>3702affirmative action,civil rights,education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-tiktok-inc-v-garland--63731757Oral Argument was heard on January 10, 2025, and a decision came out on January 17, 2025.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we analyze the decision and likely effects.
Featuring:

Darpana Sheth Nunziata, Public Interest Litigator]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63731757Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:42:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, the Court was asked to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. The PAFACA requires that TikTok either cease...Oral Argument was heard on January 10, 2025, and a decision came out on January 17, 2025.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we analyze the decision and likely effects.
Featuring:

Darpana Sheth Nunziata, Public Interest Litigator]]>2910free speech & election law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-perils-and-promise-of-a-i-in-criminal-justice--63732058 Featuring:

Michael R. Holley, First Assistant District Attorney, Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, Conroe Texas
Patrick Robinson, Owner, VSV Leadership
Jesse Rothman, Senior Fellow, Council on Criminal Justice
Hon. Scott U. Schlegel, Judge, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice; Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

--
Related Readings
--]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63732058Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOur liberty, safety, and prosperity are based on the rule of law, not the rule of man or machine. However, given that the criminal justice system suffers from many efficiencies and errors, could artificial intelligence aid the efforts of police,... Featuring:

Michael R. Holley, First Assistant District Attorney, Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, Conroe Texas
Patrick Robinson, Owner, VSV Leadership
Jesse Rothman, Senior Fellow, Council on Criminal Justice
Hon. Scott U. Schlegel, Judge, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice; Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

--
Related Readings
--]]>3633criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton--63714034Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.
Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs, including the Free Speech Coalition, "a trade association for the adult industry", sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), the plaintiffs argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. In reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).
Thus, the Supreme Court is set to consider a relatively narrow question: whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program following oral argument on January 15, 2025, where we break down and analyze how arguments went before the Court.
Featuring:

Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63714034Thu, 16 Jan 2025 14:51:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyFree Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerns Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and...Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.
Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs, including the Free Speech Coalition, "a trade association for the adult industry", sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), the plaintiffs argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. In reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).
Thus, the Supreme Court is set to consider a relatively narrow question: whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program following oral argument on January 15, 2025, where we break down and analyze how arguments went before the Court.
Featuring:

Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>3568free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/immigration-and-the-question-of-state-invasion--63701277Featuring:

Hon. Ken Cuccinelli, Former Acting Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Joseph Humire, Executive Director, Center for a Secure Free Society

--
To register, click the link above.
--
For reference:
Policy Brief: How States Can Secure the Border
Attorney General Opinion No. I22-001(R21-015)
Immigration is Not Invasion
Courts Might Not Stop Trump's Illicit Plans for Mass Deportations]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63701277Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:00:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyImmigration is a spotlight issue, especially heading into the next administration. Some say the United States is under attack—that the entrance of millions of immigrants, some of whom intend to and do cause harm to Americans, constitutes an...Featuring:

Hon. Ken Cuccinelli, Former Acting Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Joseph Humire, Executive Director, Center for a Secure Free Society

--
To register, click the link above.
--
For reference:
Policy Brief: How States Can Secure the Border
Attorney General Opinion No. I22-001(R21-015)
Immigration is Not Invasion
Courts Might Not Stop Trump's Illicit Plans for Mass Deportations]]>3893constitution,federalismcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tiktok-on-the-clock-a-courthouse-steps-oral-argument-on-tiktok-inc-v-garland--63687133Put forward as a law focused on national security, PAFACA would require that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. The government contends that TikTok poses a notable national security threat given the data it, as a foreign-owned company, collects on American users and the extent to which it could be used to control information (or disinformation) flow to American users. TikTok, along with several users, on the other hand, challenged the law, contending that while there may be a legitimate government interest in national security, the means employed in this case violate the free speech rights of both TikTok and its American users who use the platform to create content. The DC Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Ginsburg, upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge.
The Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024, and oral argument is set for January 10, 2025. Join us for a panel Courthouse Steps program following oral argument.
Featuring:

Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom
Christian Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana Attorney General's Office
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63687133Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:33:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland) the Court is set to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)(enacted by Congress in April 2024), as applied to...Put forward as a law focused on national security, PAFACA would require that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. The government contends that TikTok poses a notable national security threat given the data it, as a foreign-owned company, collects on American users and the extent to which it could be used to control information (or disinformation) flow to American users. TikTok, along with several users, on the other hand, challenged the law, contending that while there may be a legitimate government interest in national security, the means employed in this case violate the free speech rights of both TikTok and its American users who use the platform to create content. The DC Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Ginsburg, upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge.
The Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024, and oral argument is set for January 10, 2025. Join us for a panel Courthouse Steps program following oral argument.
Featuring:

Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom
Christian Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana Attorney General's Office
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together]]>3646free speech & election law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-lawless-the-miseducation-of-america-s-elites--63644327Featuring:

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63644327Fri, 10 Jan 2025 22:03:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyLawless uses the author, Ilya Shapiro’s, “lived experience” with Georgetown as a jumping-off point to discuss what he describes as the warping of legal education and the legal profession. He argues that law schools used to teach...Featuring:

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>3526civil rights,professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-january-2025--63637658
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (January 10) - First Amendment, National Security; Issue(s): Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.
Hewitt v. U.S. (January 13) - Criminal Law, First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (January 13) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.
Thompson v. U.S. (January 14) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services (January 14) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (January 15) - Free Speech; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.
Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation (January 21) - Telecommunications; Issue(s): Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Barnes v. Felix (January 22) - Criminal Law, Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.
Cunningham v. Cornell University (January 22) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.

Featuring:

Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Shannon M. Grammel, Counsel, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Gregory Y. Porter, Partner, Bailey Glasser LLP
Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
Bryan Weir, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
(Moderator) Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63637658Fri, 10 Jan 2025 14:33:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (January 10) - First Amendment, National Security;...
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (January 10) - First Amendment, National Security; Issue(s): Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.
Hewitt v. U.S. (January 13) - Criminal Law, First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (January 13) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.
Thompson v. U.S. (January 14) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services (January 14) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (January 15) - Free Speech; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.
Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation (January 21) - Telecommunications; Issue(s): Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Barnes v. Felix (January 22) - Criminal Law, Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.
Cunningham v. Cornell University (January 22) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.

Featuring:

Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Shannon M. Grammel, Counsel, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Gregory Y. Porter, Partner, Bailey Glasser LLP
Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
Bryan Weir, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
(Moderator) Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech]]>5414criminal law & procedure,financial services & e-commerc,free speech & election law,international & national secur,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/this-land-is-my-land-utah-s-supreme-court-challenge-to-federal-land-ownership--63614331Featuring:

Ethan Blevins, Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
David Willms, Associate Vice President, Public Lands at National Wildlife Federation
Moderator: Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63614331Wed, 08 Jan 2025 16:20:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn August of 2024, the state of Utah filed suit against the United States contesting the ownership of certain lands in Utah. When asking the United States Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction, Utah argues that the federal government...Featuring:

Ethan Blevins, Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
David Willms, Associate Vice President, Public Lands at National Wildlife Federation
Moderator: Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3653environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-of-securities-self-regulation-after-alpine--63167931Alpine's central argument is that FINRA's board members are not appointed by the President, nor are they subject to Senate confirmation, as required by the Appointments Clause and the private non-delegation doctrine for officers of the United States. Alpine contends that, as a private, non-governmental entity, FINRA is composed of individuals who are not accountable to the public or elected officials in the same way that government agencies are. This, Alpine argues, makes its regulatory and enforcement powers unconstitutional.
FINRA argues, however, that its regulations and enforcement decisions are under close scrutiny by the SEC, and, thus, that this delegation of federal power to it, a private regulator, is constitutionally permissible. FINRA also worries that accepting Alpine’s arguments could bring destabilizing and potentially disastrous consequences to the self-regulatory framework of the markets.
The case involves questions about the balance between public regulatory authority and private self-regulation within the securities industry. The outcome could have significant implications for the structure of SROs like FINRA, which play a key role in regulating the securities industry but operate outside the direct control of the government.
The Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group of the Federalist Society is pleased to present this FedSoc Forum on the Alpine case. Join us in discussing the arguments raised in the case and the DC Circuit’s opinion, as well as the implications for securities industry self-regulation going forward.
Featuring:

Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Lead Counsel for Alpine
W. Hardy Callcott, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Moderator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63167931Mon, 30 Dec 2024 18:56:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“Alpine’) raises a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure and regulatory authority of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) before the U.S....Alpine's central argument is that FINRA's board members are not appointed by the President, nor are they subject to Senate confirmation, as required by the Appointments Clause and the private non-delegation doctrine for officers of the United States. Alpine contends that, as a private, non-governmental entity, FINRA is composed of individuals who are not accountable to the public or elected officials in the same way that government agencies are. This, Alpine argues, makes its regulatory and enforcement powers unconstitutional.
FINRA argues, however, that its regulations and enforcement decisions are under close scrutiny by the SEC, and, thus, that this delegation of federal power to it, a private regulator, is constitutionally permissible. FINRA also worries that accepting Alpine’s arguments could bring destabilizing and potentially disastrous consequences to the self-regulatory framework of the markets.
The case involves questions about the balance between public regulatory authority and private self-regulation within the securities industry. The outcome could have significant implications for the structure of SROs like FINRA, which play a key role in regulating the securities industry but operate outside the direct control of the government.
The Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group of the Federalist Society is pleased to present this FedSoc Forum on the Alpine case. Join us in discussing the arguments raised in the case and the DC Circuit’s opinion, as well as the implications for securities industry self-regulation going forward.
Featuring:

Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Lead Counsel for Alpine
W. Hardy Callcott, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Moderator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3512corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-of-civil-rights-enforcement-at-the-eeoc-ofccp-and-doj--63394814Featuring:

Jon Greenbaum, Founder, Justice Legal Strategies PLLC
Prof. George R. La Noue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates; Former Director, OFCCP
Hon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Former Director, OFCCP; Former Chair, EEOC
(Moderator) Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association; Former Deputy Director, OFCCP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63394814Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:10:28 +0000The Federalist SocietyFederal civil rights enforcement in the employment area is handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC,) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP,) and the Department of Justice (DOJ.) This webinar will explore...Featuring:

Jon Greenbaum, Founder, Justice Legal Strategies PLLC
Prof. George R. La Noue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates; Former Director, OFCCP
Hon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Former Director, OFCCP; Former Chair, EEOC
(Moderator) Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association; Former Deputy Director, OFCCP]]>3706administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/addressing-antisemitism-in-higher-education--63394744Featuring:

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy Center
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Alexander Tsesis, Professor and D’Alemberte Chair in Constitutional Law, Florida State University College of Law
(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63394744Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:03:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the wake of the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack in Israel, there have been reports of discrimination against Jewish students at prominent American colleges and universities. This panel will discuss the nature of the legal remedies that may be...Featuring:

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy Center
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Alexander Tsesis, Professor and D’Alemberte Chair in Constitutional Law, Florida State University College of Law
(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute]]>3727civil rights,first amendment,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-boston-parent-coalition-for-academic-excellence-v-the-school-committee-for-the-city-of-boston--63374797By denying certiorari, the Court left the First Circuit’s opinion in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissent from denial, as they had in a similar case earlier this year called Coalition for TJ. Justice Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial, stating that he largely agreed with Justice Alito’s dissent.
This litigation update will evaluate the state of the law when it comes to “proxy discrimination” measures, and whether an equal protection claim must establish a particularly onerous disparate impact on the targeted race at issue.
Featuring:

Christopher M. Kieser, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63374797Wed, 18 Dec 2024 14:50:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 9, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston. The case involved an equal protection challenge to a change in admissions policy in Boston, where a...By denying certiorari, the Court left the First Circuit’s opinion in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissent from denial, as they had in a similar case earlier this year called Coalition for TJ. Justice Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial, stating that he largely agreed with Justice Alito’s dissent.
This litigation update will evaluate the state of the law when it comes to “proxy discrimination” measures, and whether an equal protection claim must establish a particularly onerous disparate impact on the targeted race at issue.
Featuring:

Christopher M. Kieser, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>3274civil rights,education policy,fourteenth amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-seven-county-infrastructure-coalition-v-eagle-county-colorado--63354663
Oral Argument is set for December 10, 2024. Join us in discussing this case and its argument with Prof. Andrew Mergen, who assisted respondents in the court of appeals, and Prof. Paul Salamanca, who wrote an amicus brief in support of petitioners.

Featuring:

Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law & Faculty Director, Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Prof. Paul Salamanca, Acting Dean and Wendell H. Ford Professor of Law, University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law
Moderator: Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63354663Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:04:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis case concerns the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface...
Oral Argument is set for December 10, 2024. Join us in discussing this case and its argument with Prof. Andrew Mergen, who assisted respondents in the court of appeals, and Prof. Paul Salamanca, who wrote an amicus brief in support of petitioners.

Featuring:

Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law & Faculty Director, Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Prof. Paul Salamanca, Acting Dean and Wendell H. Ford Professor of Law, University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law
Moderator: Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3347environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-states-v-skrmetti--63306022In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They allege that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari on June 24, 2024, on the question of whether and how the Equal Protection Clause interacts with Tennesse's law. Argument before the Court occurred on December 4, 2024.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63306022Fri, 13 Dec 2024 18:50:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex. In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical...In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They allege that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari on June 24, 2024, on the question of whether and how the Equal Protection Clause interacts with Tennesse's law. Argument before the Court occurred on December 4, 2024.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation]]>3295civil rights,federalism,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-bethesda-university-v-cho--63305998Featuring:

Ryan Gardner, Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. William Robert Wagner, WFFC Distinguished Chair, Spring Arbor University; Counselor of the Ministry & President Emeritus, Salt & Light Global; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63305998Fri, 13 Dec 2024 18:46:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyBethesda University, a private Christian university founded around Pentecostal theology, faced an internal leadership dispute, as the president persuaded the board to appoint non-Pentecostal members to the board of directors. The rest of the...Featuring:

Ryan Gardner, Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. William Robert Wagner, WFFC Distinguished Chair, Spring Arbor University; Counselor of the Ministry & President Emeritus, Salt & Light Global; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School]]>2417first amendment,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-policy-in-president-trump-s-second-term--63339582 Featuring:

Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute
Satya Thallam, Senior Vice President, Americans for Responsible Innovation
Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63339582Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThere have been significant changes in federal AI policy over the course of the first term of the Trump administration and Biden administration that present a major inflection point for President-elect Trump as he prepares for his second term in... Featuring:

Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute
Satya Thallam, Senior Vice President, Americans for Responsible Innovation
Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law
]]>3754administrative law & regulatio,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-first-amendment-matters-in-the-classroom--63254059Join us for a litigation update conversation on Pickens County Chapter of the NAACP et al. v. School District of Pickens County (a South Carolina case concerning the removal of a book) and related proceedings concerning instructional materials in South Carolina and religious families receiving opt-outs in St. Louis Park, MN.
Featuring:

Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63254059Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:04:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe intersection of the First Amendment, parental rights, and educational texts has become a topic of significant conversation over the past several years. School boards in states across the nation are facing questions related to what materials are...Join us for a litigation update conversation on Pickens County Chapter of the NAACP et al. v. School District of Pickens County (a South Carolina case concerning the removal of a book) and related proceedings concerning instructional materials in South Carolina and religious families receiving opt-outs in St. Louis Park, MN.
Featuring:

Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law]]>3661education policy,free speech & election law,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-fcc-s-proposal-to-regulate-political-ads-using-artificial-intelligence--63169234Featuring:

Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner
Chris Lewis, President, Public Knowledge
Prof. Bradley Smith, Former FEC Chairman; Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Moderator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63169234Thu, 05 Dec 2024 16:07:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has initiated a proceeding that proposes to require radio and TV broadcasters as well as cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to include a disclaimer on all political advertisements that...Featuring:

Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner
Chris Lewis, President, Public Knowledge
Prof. Bradley Smith, Former FEC Chairman; Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Moderator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation]]>3588free speech & election law,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-food-and-drug-administration-v-wages-and-white-lion-investments-llc--63147068SCOTUS granted the FDA's cert petition and the court heard oral argument on Monday, December 2. Join us in discussing the argument and considering which way the Court might take this.
Featuring:

Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63147068Wed, 04 Dec 2024 18:01:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnder the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in...SCOTUS granted the FDA's cert petition and the court heard oral argument on Monday, December 2. Join us in discussing the argument and considering which way the Court might take this.
Featuring:

Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

--
To register, click the link above.]]>2455federalism,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-could-the-next-administration-s-sec-agenda-look-like--63144310Featuring:

C. Wallace DeWitt, Securities Lawyer
Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63144310Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:07:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith the upcoming shift in presidential administrations, there is a potential for significant changes within federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission. This webinar will speculate and discuss exactly what sorts of changes may be in...Featuring:

C. Wallace DeWitt, Securities Lawyer
Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3660corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-recent-challenges-to-the-new-title-ix-regulations--63128862Shortly after the new rule issued, at least ten separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states, school districts, and parental rights groups in various federal jurisdictions. Thus far, the lawsuits have been uniformly successfully, with the rule now preliminarily enjoined in 26 states and numerous additional school districts. As oral argument is set to begin in the circuit courts on the government’s appeal, this webinar will review this litigation’s history, as well as preview its future, including what it might say about Bostock applicability outside of Title VII.
Featuring:


Donald A. Daugherty, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Defense of Freedom Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63128862Tue, 03 Dec 2024 15:34:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis past April, the Department of Education published a 423-page final rule amending its implementing for Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs and activities, with certain, important exceptions. The new...Shortly after the new rule issued, at least ten separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states, school districts, and parental rights groups in various federal jurisdictions. Thus far, the lawsuits have been uniformly successfully, with the rule now preliminarily enjoined in 26 states and numerous additional school districts. As oral argument is set to begin in the circuit courts on the government’s appeal, this webinar will review this litigation’s history, as well as preview its future, including what it might say about Bostock applicability outside of Title VII.
Featuring:


Donald A. Daugherty, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Defense of Freedom Institute]]>2574litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-supreme-court-s-three-cheers-for-free-speech--63128847The cases are Gonzalez v. Trevino, decided on June 20, 2024; Murphy v. Schmitt, summarily reversed on October 7, 2024; and Villarreal v. Alaniz, summarily reversed on October 15, 2024. These rulings allow the cases to proceed, giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to pursue legal action against the government officials responsible for their arrests. Despite the diverse factual backgrounds of these cases, the Court's consistent approach suggests a heightened focus on protecting First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's recent decisions may have significant implications for First Amendment jurisprudence and future cases involving speech-related arrests.
Join us for a conversation about these three cases and their possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63128847Tue, 03 Dec 2024 15:33:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court has recently issued rulings in three cases involving speech-based arrests, demonstrating increased scrutiny of such incidents. In a span of four months, the Court reversed three lower court decisions that had previously granted...The cases are Gonzalez v. Trevino, decided on June 20, 2024; Murphy v. Schmitt, summarily reversed on October 7, 2024; and Villarreal v. Alaniz, summarily reversed on October 15, 2024. These rulings allow the cases to proceed, giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to pursue legal action against the government officials responsible for their arrests. Despite the diverse factual backgrounds of these cases, the Court's consistent approach suggests a heightened focus on protecting First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's recent decisions may have significant implications for First Amendment jurisprudence and future cases involving speech-related arrests.
Join us for a conversation about these three cases and their possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice]]>2450cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-december-2024--63113050
Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (December 2) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious.
U.S. v. Miller (December 2) - Bankruptcy; Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.
Republic of Hungary v. Simon (December 3) - International Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA.
U.S. v. Skrmetti (December 4) - Federalism & Separation of Powers& SOGI; Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Kousisis v. U.S. (December 9) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”
Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (December 9) - Federal Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (December 10) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.
Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers (December 11) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Featuring:

Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Eric N. Kniffin, Attorney, Kniffin Law PLLC, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Alexandra Shapiro, Partner, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP
Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center
(Moderator) Tessa Shurr, Committee Staff, U.S. House of Representatives
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63113050Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC...
Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (December 2) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious.
U.S. v. Miller (December 2) - Bankruptcy; Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.
Republic of Hungary v. Simon (December 3) - International Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA.
U.S. v. Skrmetti (December 4) - Federalism & Separation of Powers& SOGI; Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Kousisis v. U.S. (December 9) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”
Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (December 9) - Federal Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (December 10) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.
Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers (December 11) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Featuring:

Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Eric N. Kniffin, Attorney, Kniffin Law PLLC, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Alexandra Shapiro, Partner, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP
Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center
...]]>5028cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-delligatti-v-united-states--63015176Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.
Oral Argument was heard on November 12, 2024.
Join us for this Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze OA and the potential outcomes of this case.
Featuring:

Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63015176Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:56:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyDelligatti v. United States concerns whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Known by some as the...Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.
Oral Argument was heard on November 12, 2024.
Join us for this Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze OA and the potential outcomes of this case.
Featuring:

Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister]]>3145criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/time-for-a-checkup-evaluating-the-withdrawal-of-the-health-care-antitrust-guidelines--63015133Featuring:

John Carroll, Partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group, Sheppard Mullin
Richard Feinstein, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Former Director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission
Laurel Kilgour, Research Manager, American Economic Liberties Project
Barry Nigro, Partner, Global Chair, Antitrust and Competition, Fried Frank
Prof. Barak Richman, Alexander Hamilton Professor of Business Law, George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Adam Biegel, Partner, Co-chair of the Litigation & Trial Practice Group, Alston & Bird

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63015133Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:49:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1996, the FTC and DOJ issued Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care. The statements addressed important topics, such as hospital mergers, information sharing, joint purchasing, and provider joint ventures. The DOJ withdrew the...Featuring:

John Carroll, Partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group, Sheppard Mullin
Richard Feinstein, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Former Director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission
Laurel Kilgour, Research Manager, American Economic Liberties Project
Barry Nigro, Partner, Global Chair, Antitrust and Competition, Fried Frank
Prof. Barak Richman, Alexander Hamilton Professor of Business Law, George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Adam Biegel, Partner, Co-chair of the Litigation & Trial Practice Group, Alston & Bird

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3559corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/does-jarkesy-doom-the-preserve-access-to-affordable-generics-and-biosimilars-act--63015102Featuring:

Matthew S. Hellman, Partner, Jenner & Block
William M. Jay, Partner, Appellate & Supreme Court Litigation, Goodwin Procter LLP
Prof. Emily Michiko Morris, David L. Brennan Endowed Chair, Associate Professor, and Associate Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Technology, The University of Akron School of Law
Matthew D. Rowen, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
Moderator: Brian Pandya, Partner, Duane Morris LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63015102Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:45:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyReducing the cost of prescription drugs has been a bipartisan priority for years. One recent effort is the Preserve Access to Affordadble Generics and Biosimilars Act (S. 142), sponsored by Sen. Klobuchar with the support of Sen. Grassley and others....Featuring:

Matthew S. Hellman, Partner, Jenner & Block
William M. Jay, Partner, Appellate & Supreme Court Litigation, Goodwin Procter LLP
Prof. Emily Michiko Morris, David L. Brennan Endowed Chair, Associate Professor, and Associate Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Technology, The University of Akron School of Law
Matthew D. Rowen, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
Moderator: Brian Pandya, Partner, Duane Morris LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3233cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-ai-woke-in-what-ways-and-should-we-worry--63004380Increasingly, politicians and other policymakers are proposing laws, regulations, and guidelines aimed at preventing bias against minority groups in AI systems. Do we need similar laws to protect against the biases of Woke AI and if so, what should those laws look like?
Please join us as an expert panel discusses these questions and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Vincent Conitzer, Professor of Computer Science & Director, Foundations of Cooperative AI Lab (FOCAL), Carnegie Mellon University
Nicholas P. Garcia, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63004380Mon, 25 Nov 2024 18:57:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyDiscussions of the dangers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) have long included concerns about AI systems’ potential to discriminate against racial minorities, women, and other groups said to be disadvantaged. But more recently, there have been...Increasingly, politicians and other policymakers are proposing laws, regulations, and guidelines aimed at preventing bias against minority groups in AI systems. Do we need similar laws to protect against the biases of Woke AI and if so, what should those laws look like?
Please join us as an expert panel discusses these questions and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Vincent Conitzer, Professor of Computer Science & Director, Foundations of Cooperative AI Lab (FOCAL), Carnegie Mellon University
Nicholas P. Garcia, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]>3533civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-tennessee-v-cardona--63003117Particularly at issue are those provisions that redefine the term "sex" to include "gender identity" for purposes of the regulation. Six states, including Tennessee, along with an association of Christian educators and a female high-school student sued, alleging the regulation as amended threatened student privacy, safety, and free speech." They also sought an injunction to stop the full rule from going into effect based on the immediate and irreparable harm they argued it would cause. The District Court granted an injunction and the government’s request to stay the injunction was granted by the Sixth Circuit. The Supreme Court also denied the government’s application for a stay of the injunction. The case is now being argued on the merits.
Join us for a litigation update on this important case.

Featuring:

Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General
(Moderator) Samuel D. Adkisson, Associate, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/63003117Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:14:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyTennessee v. Cardona concerns the Biden Administration’s recent revisions to regulations under Title IX. Particularly at issue are those provisions that redefine the term "sex" to include "gender identity" for purposes of the regulation. Six...Particularly at issue are those provisions that redefine the term "sex" to include "gender identity" for purposes of the regulation. Six states, including Tennessee, along with an association of Christian educators and a female high-school student sued, alleging the regulation as amended threatened student privacy, safety, and free speech." They also sought an injunction to stop the full rule from going into effect based on the immediate and irreparable harm they argued it would cause. The District Court granted an injunction and the government’s request to stay the injunction was granted by the Sixth Circuit. The Supreme Court also denied the government’s application for a stay of the injunction. The case is now being argued on the merits.
Join us for a litigation update on this important case.

Featuring:

Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General
(Moderator) Samuel D. Adkisson, Associate, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC]]>3091administrative law & regulatio,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-smith-v-city-of-atlantic-city--62818361Together, the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic and First Liberty Institute are appealing his case to the Third Circuit, with oral argument on October 30. Join Kayla Toney, who is arguing the case, and Katie Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow at the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic, as they break down the argument.
Featuring:

Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Kathryn Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62818361Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:58:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Atlantic City Fire Department requires all personnel who respond to fires or other emergencies to follow the proper use of an air mask when exposed to hazardous air. To ensure a proper fit, employees are prohibited from growing facial hair that...Together, the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic and First Liberty Institute are appealing his case to the Third Circuit, with oral argument on October 30. Join Kayla Toney, who is arguing the case, and Katie Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow at the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic, as they break down the argument.
Featuring:

Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Kathryn Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School]]>3562first amendment,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-e-m-d-sales-inc-v-carrera--62818238The plaintiffs in this case are two employees of a food distribution company, who sued for overtime benefits citing the Fair Labor Standards Act. The company argued that their positions were those of salesmen, who are normally exempted from overtime pay rules. The plaintiffs allege that making sales was a secondary part of their numerous responsibilities that were not overtime exempt. The district court agreed that E.M.D failed to prove a sales exemption, and the Fourth Circut Court of Appeals affirmed.
Currently, the case is before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments on November 5th. Join Michael O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs at Landmark Legal Foundation, and Cheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer at BrightStar Care, as they review oral arguments and discuss this case and its implications.
Featuring:

Michael J. O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Cheryl M. Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar Care]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62818238Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:52:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyE.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera concerns what standard the court should apply in cases of exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This act governs such limitations as hours worked, overtime pay, and working conditions across the United States....The plaintiffs in this case are two employees of a food distribution company, who sued for overtime benefits citing the Fair Labor Standards Act. The company argued that their positions were those of salesmen, who are normally exempted from overtime pay rules. The plaintiffs allege that making sales was a secondary part of their numerous responsibilities that were not overtime exempt. The district court agreed that E.M.D failed to prove a sales exemption, and the Fourth Circut Court of Appeals affirmed.
Currently, the case is before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments on November 5th. Join Michael O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs at Landmark Legal Foundation, and Cheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer at BrightStar Care, as they review oral arguments and discuss this case and its implications.
Featuring:

Michael J. O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Cheryl M. Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar Care]]>2433labor & employment law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-chiles-v-salazar--62611977In September 2024, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Ms. Chiles, holding that MCTL does not unlawfully abridge what she can say to her clients. Join us for a discussion of this case, Colorado’s limits on therapist speech, and the larger implications for freedom of speech and religion.
Featuring:

Cody Barnett, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Tessa E. Shurr, Committee Staff, U.S. House of Representatives]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62611977Mon, 04 Nov 2024 19:59:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyChiles v. Salazar arises from a challenge to a Colorado law limiting therapists’ speech when counseling gay and transgender individuals. The Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL) prevents licensed mental health professionals from providing any...In September 2024, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Ms. Chiles, holding that MCTL does not unlawfully abridge what she can say to her clients. Join us for a discussion of this case, Colorado’s limits on therapist speech, and the larger implications for freedom of speech and religion.
Featuring:

Cody Barnett, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Tessa E. Shurr, Committee Staff, U.S. House of Representatives]]>3549civil rights,first amendment,free speech & election law,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-november-2024--62614717
Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., (November 4) - Telecommunications; Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.
Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra, (November 5) - Medicare; Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.
E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera, (November 5) - Labor & Employment; Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, (November 6) - Corporations; Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.
Velazquez v. Garland, (November 12) - International and National Security; Whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).
Delligatti v. U.S., (November 12) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, (November 13) - Securities; (1) Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Featuring:

Tyler S. Badgley, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
Robert S. Peck, President, Center for Constitutional Litigation
Collin White, Of Counsel, Kellogg Hansen
(Moderator) Sarah Child, Attorney, Jackson Lewis
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62614717Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., (November 4) - Telecommunications; Whether...
Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., (November 4) - Telecommunications; Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.
Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra, (November 5) - Medicare; Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.
E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera, (November 5) - Labor & Employment; Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, (November 6) - Corporations; Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.
Velazquez v. Garland, (November 12) - International and National Security; Whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).
Delligatti v. U.S., (November 12) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, (November 13) - Securities; (1) Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Featuring:

Tyler S. Badgley, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
Robert S. Peck, President, Center for Constitutional Litigation
Collin White, Of Counsel, Kellogg Hansen
(Moderator) Sarah Child, Attorney, Jackson Lewis
]]>3980cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/competition-and-consumer-banking-bank-mergers-credit-cards-and-the-capital-one-discover-deal--62623233 Featuring:

Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Sen. Patrick Toomey, Former United States Senator (PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking
Dr. Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy, Progressive Policy Institute
Moderator: Jelena McWilliams, Managing Partner and Head of the Financial Institutions Group, Cravath, Swaine, & Moore Washington, D.C. office, Former Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62623233Wed, 30 Oct 2024 18:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn September, the Department of Justice announced that it would withdraw its 1995 bank merger guidelines and apply its 2023 merger guidelines for all industries, a move that some have interpreted as signaling stricter review of bank mergers. At the... Featuring:

Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Sen. Patrick Toomey, Former United States Senator (PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking
Dr. Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy, Progressive Policy Institute
Moderator: Jelena McWilliams, Managing Partner and Head of the Financial Institutions Group, Cravath, Swaine, & Moore Washington, D.C. office, Former Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3717corporations,financial services,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-antiquities-act-a-tool-for-conservation-or-a-law-without-limit--62623208 Following these designations, both the State of Utah and a collection of individual plaintiffs sued, arguing that the President's actions violated the Antiquities Act. The Tenth Circuit recently heard arguments on the case, which concerns not only the meaning of the Antiquities Act, but also whether such presidential action is reviewable by the federal courts in the first place. This challenge ultimately tees up a question that Chief Justice Roberts asked in a separate writing a few years ago: Whether the Antiquities Act really is as broad as it has been applied, or whether it is time for the federal courts to start reimposing its limits?
Featuring:

Harry Graver, Associate, Jones Day
Prof. Sam Kalen, Associate Dean and William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law
Moderator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62623208Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:00:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1906, Congress passed the Antiquities Act, which gives the President the authority to set aside federal land to protect "objects of historic or scientific interest." Presidents have since used the Act in increasingly broad ways, setting aside... Following these designations, both the State of Utah and a collection of individual plaintiffs sued, arguing that the President's actions violated the Antiquities Act. The Tenth Circuit recently heard arguments on the case, which concerns not only the meaning of the Antiquities Act, but also whether such presidential action is reviewable by the federal courts in the first place. This challenge ultimately tees up a question that Chief Justice Roberts asked in a separate writing a few years ago: Whether the Antiquities Act really is as broad as it has been applied, or whether it is time for the federal courts to start reimposing its limits?
Featuring:

Harry Graver, Associate, Jones Day
Prof. Sam Kalen, Associate Dean and William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law
Moderator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3561environmental law & property rcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-does-new-mean-agency-action-post-chevron--62623159 This decision is already affecting administrative law and the review of agency rulemaking. It is being widely cited by both litigants and courts. For example, in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit recently held that the EPA misinterpreted the term “new” when it classified certain sources of hazardous air pollutants as “new” rather than “existing.” EPA’s determination to make those “existing” sources accountable for the rule’s stricter regulations for “new” sources was vacated.
Join us for a discussion of how Loper Bright has already impacted this and other agency actions, and what else we might expect in a post-Chevron world.

Featuring:

Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Rob Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Moderator: Jonathan Brightbill, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP

--
To register, click the link above.

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62623159Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast term, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This watershed ruling included the notable line, “Chevron is overruled.” The federal judiciary is now to review agencies’ interpretations... This decision is already affecting administrative law and the review of agency rulemaking. It is being widely cited by both litigants and courts. For example, in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit recently held that the EPA misinterpreted the term “new” when it classified certain sources of hazardous air pollutants as “new” rather than “existing.” EPA’s determination to make those “existing” sources accountable for the rule’s stricter regulations for “new” sources was vacated.
Join us for a discussion of how Loper Bright has already impacted this and other agency actions, and what else we might expect in a post-Chevron world.

Featuring:

Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Rob Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Moderator: Jonathan Brightbill, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP

--
To register, click the link above.

]]>4011administrative law & regulatio,environmental law & property r,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/textualism-and-patent-statutory-law-patent-eligibility-odp-and-upcoming-patent-reform-in-congress--62542527Featuring:

Matthew Dowd, Founder and Partner, Dowd Scheffel PLLC
Sherry Knowles, Principal, Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies
Gene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.
Prof. Josh Sarnoff, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law
Moderator: John Rogitz, Managing Attorney, Rogitz & Associates

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62542527Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:57:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhen it comes to patent eligibility and statutory construction, does “any” really mean “any?” In the courts, is it permissible to limit statutorily-authorized patent term adjustment based on a doctrine that has no basis in...Featuring:

Matthew Dowd, Founder and Partner, Dowd Scheffel PLLC
Sherry Knowles, Principal, Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies
Gene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.
Prof. Josh Sarnoff, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law
Moderator: John Rogitz, Managing Attorney, Rogitz & Associates

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3786intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/religious-liberty-and-the-court-looking-ahead-to-the-2024-2025-term--62543328 Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. 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
(Moderator) Prof. William L. Saunders, Director of the Program in Human Rights, Catholic University of America
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62543328Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society is proud to host Mark Rienzi, President of the Becket Fund and Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America, for this year’s annual discussion of Religious Liberty at the Court. This webinar will be moderated by... Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. 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
(Moderator) Prof. William L. Saunders, Director of the Program in Human Rights, Catholic University of America
]]>3280litigation,religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-garland-v-vanderstok--62475054Oral argument was heard on October 8, 2024.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Oral Argument program with litigating attorney Peter Patterson who argued on behalf of the respondents.
Featuring:

Peter A. Patterson, Partner, Cooper & Kirk]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62475054Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:11:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyGarland v. VanDerStok concerns whether the ATF's 2022 update to its regulations under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which clarified that federal law requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of standard firearms also apply to "ghost guns"...Oral argument was heard on October 8, 2024.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Oral Argument program with litigating attorney Peter Patterson who argued on behalf of the respondents.
Featuring:

Peter A. Patterson, Partner, Cooper & Kirk]]>2292administrative law & regulatio,criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-ron-rotunda-memorial-webinar-profiles-in-courage-in-the-legal-profession--62475009Join us for the 2024 installment in that series, where Erin Murphy will join us for a conversation moderated by Prof. Josh Blackman on the importance of courage as a lawyer as well as the state of the legal profession more broadly.
Featuring:

Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62475009Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:07:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessor Ron Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law...Join us for the 2024 installment in that series, where Erin Murphy will join us for a conversation moderated by Prof. Josh Blackman on the importance of courage as a lawyer as well as the state of the legal profession more broadly.
Featuring:

Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston]]>3161professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lng-lawfare-pause-permitting-policy-for-american-gas-exports--62385715The clash has made its way into the courts: In July 2024, a federal trial judge stayed the administration’s policy, and in August, the D.C. Circuit rescinded FERC’s previous authorization of two LNG projects on the Texas coast due to alleged deficiencies in its environmental analysis. Our panel of experts will discuss these recent policies and rulings, along with the broader implications of American LNG for energy security and international environmental efforts.
Featuring:

Gabriel Collins, Baker Botts Fellow in Energy & Environmental Regulatory Affairs, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University
Spencer Churchill, Associate, Winston & Strawn LLP
Moderator: Daniel G. West, Director, SCF Partners]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62385715Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyLiquefied natural gas (“LNG”) technology has enabled the United States to become the world’s largest exporter of natural gas in recent years, boosting our allies’ energy security and our own domestic economy and trade balance....The clash has made its way into the courts: In July 2024, a federal trial judge stayed the administration’s policy, and in August, the D.C. Circuit rescinded FERC’s previous authorization of two LNG projects on the Texas coast due to alleged deficiencies in its environmental analysis. Our panel of experts will discuss these recent policies and rulings, along with the broader implications of American LNG for energy security and international environmental efforts.
Featuring:

Gabriel Collins, Baker Botts Fellow in Energy & Environmental Regulatory Affairs, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University
Spencer Churchill, Associate, Winston & Strawn LLP
Moderator: Daniel G. West, Director, SCF Partners]]>3330environmental & energy law,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/insights-on-the-national-spectrum-strategy--62385697Featuring:

Jennifer Warren, Vice President, Technology Policy & Regulation, Lockheed Martin Government Affairs
Hon. Robert McDowell, Partner, Cooley
Umair Javed, Acting Chief Counsel, Office of Acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel
Moderator: John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62385697Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:58:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) unveiled the National Spectrum Strategy in November 2023 with significant attention and has since introduced an implementation plan. This webinar will delve into potential...Featuring:

Jennifer Warren, Vice President, Technology Policy & Regulation, Lockheed Martin Government Affairs
Hon. Robert McDowell, Partner, Cooley
Umair Javed, Acting Chief Counsel, Office of Acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel
Moderator: John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC]]>3774telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-the-indispensable-right--62385538Join us as Prof. Turley and (moderator) Hon. Eileen O'Connor discuss these issues of free speech and the book itself.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62385538Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:33:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his new book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, Professor Jonathan Turley turns his attention to current attacks on free speech, analyzing them in the context of the historical, legal, and political traditions of free speech...Join us as Prof. Turley and (moderator) Hon. Eileen O'Connor discuss these issues of free speech and the book itself.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC]]>3519administrative law & regulatio,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fireside-chat-with-gwendolyn-cooley--62385107
Gwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley
Featuring:

Gwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley, Former NAAG Antitrust Task Force Chair and Former Assistant Attorney General at Wisconsin Department of Justice
Moderator: Dina Kallay, Head of Antitrust and Competition Law, Ericsson

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62385107Thu, 10 Oct 2024 16:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyPlease join us for a fireside chat with Gwendolyn Cooley, former Chair of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Multistate Antitrust Task Force (2021-2024) and former Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General (2005-2024). This candid...
Gwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley
Featuring:

Gwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley, Former NAAG Antitrust Task Force Chair and Former Assistant Attorney General at Wisconsin Department of Justice
Moderator: Dina Kallay, Head of Antitrust and Competition Law, Ericsson

--
To register, click the link above.]]>2829corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-villarreal-v-city-of-laredo--62385109 Interestingly, this marked the first time the statute had been enforced, despite sitting on the books for over two decades. Ms. Villareal sued, alleging the law violated her First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In a deeply splintered 9-7 decision, the en banc Fifth Circuit held those officials have qualified immunity from Villarreal’s First and Fourth Amendment claims.
Villarreal has filed a petition of certiorari at the Supreme Court, asking the Court to answer (1) whether it obviously violates the Constitution to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment.
Join us for a litigation update on this interesting case.
Featuring:

JT Morris, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62385109Wed, 09 Oct 2024 18:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Laredo, Texas, officials arrested local journalist and regular government critic Priscilla Villarreal for soliciting and receiving “information that has not been made public” with the "intent to obtain a benefit", a felony under a local... Interestingly, this marked the first time the statute had been enforced, despite sitting on the books for over two decades. Ms. Villareal sued, alleging the law violated her First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In a deeply splintered 9-7 decision, the en banc Fifth Circuit held those officials have qualified immunity from Villarreal’s First and Fourth Amendment claims.
Villarreal has filed a petition of certiorari at the Supreme Court, asking the Court to answer (1) whether it obviously violates the Constitution to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment.
Join us for a litigation update on this interesting case.
Featuring:

JT Morris, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together
]]>2720civil rights,free speech & election law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/nondelegation-doctrine-adds-another-good-year--62373400 Contrary to the FCC's argument, the en banc Fifth Circuit concluded that the Universal Service Fund operates as a tax, which only Congress has the power and authority to require. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or to any other executive branch agency. The nondelegation doctrine has not been entirely dead for the last hundred years; courts often construe statutes so as not to invalidate them under the nondelegation doctrine. The en banc Fifth Circuit rejected that approach.
Does the canon in the common law of agency, mentioned by the Fifth Circuit, known as delegata potestas non potest delegari (Latin for “delegated power may not be delegated”), have any impact on the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine? Assuming the nondelegation doctrine is valid, what are the standards that courts should look to when determining whether a statute is sufficiently intelligible? Do words like “in the public interest” or instructions for the agency to “provide reasonable regulations” provide sufficient guidance to agencies? What kind of principles can be applied that are also judicially enforceable?
If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit, what will be the impact on other statutes? To discuss these important questions and others, Jeff Beelaert, a partner at Stein Mitchell, and Trent McCotter, a partner at Boyden Gray, will join us.
Featuring:

Jeffrey Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell
Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62373400Wed, 09 Oct 2024 16:30:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor many years, legal scholars have declared that the nondelegation doctrine is dead. Professor Cass Sunstein once quipped that the nondelegation doctrine had only "one good year" and more than 200 "bad ones." But that has changed recently. In... Contrary to the FCC's argument, the en banc Fifth Circuit concluded that the Universal Service Fund operates as a tax, which only Congress has the power and authority to require. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or to any other executive branch agency. The nondelegation doctrine has not been entirely dead for the last hundred years; courts often construe statutes so as not to invalidate them under the nondelegation doctrine. The en banc Fifth Circuit rejected that approach.
Does the canon in the common law of agency, mentioned by the Fifth Circuit, known as delegata potestas non potest delegari (Latin for “delegated power may not be delegated”), have any impact on the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine? Assuming the nondelegation doctrine is valid, what are the standards that courts should look to when determining whether a statute is sufficiently intelligible? Do words like “in the public interest” or instructions for the agency to “provide reasonable regulations” provide sufficient guidance to agencies? What kind of principles can be applied that are also judicially enforceable?
If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit, what will be the impact on other statutes? To discuss these important questions and others, Jeff Beelaert, a partner at Stein Mitchell, and Trent McCotter, a partner at Boyden Gray, will join us.
Featuring:

Jeffrey Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell
Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3759separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-october-2024--62300689
Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Williams v. Washington, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.
Garland v. VanDerStok, (October 8) -Second Amendment; Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.
Lackey v. Stinnie, (October 8) -Civil Procedure; (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.
Glossip v. Oklahoma, (October 9) -Criminal Law; (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, (October 15), -Immigration; Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
Medical Marijuana v. Horn, October 15 -Criminal Law; Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (October 16) -Environmental Law & Regulation; Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
Bufkin v. McDonough, (October 16) -Vetrans Affairs; Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule.

Featuring:

James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Matthew Rice, Solicitor General, Tennessee Attorney General's Office
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Kirby T. West, Attorney, Institute of Justice
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62300689Thu, 03 Oct 2024 18:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation...
Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Williams v. Washington, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.
Garland v. VanDerStok, (October 8) -Second Amendment; Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.
Lackey v. Stinnie, (October 8) -Civil Procedure; (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.
Glossip v. Oklahoma, (October 9) -Criminal Law; (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, (October 15), -Immigration; Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
Medical Marijuana v. Horn, October 15 -Criminal Law; Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (October 16) -Environmental Law & Regulation; Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
Bufkin v. McDonough, (October 16) -Vetrans...]]>4084supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-religious-charter-school-a-discussion-on-the-limits-of-state-action-and-demands-of-the-free-exercise-clause--62167615Featuring:

Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, Professor of Law 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/62167615Mon, 30 Sep 2024 17:05:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 25, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the nation’s first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause based on its view that the privately...Featuring:

Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, Professor of Law and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law]]>3769constitution,education policy,first amendment,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-nowhere-to-live-the-hidden-story-of-america-s-housing-crisis--62179826 Featuring:

James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

--
To register, click the link above.
Click here to read James Burling's blog post.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62179826Wed, 25 Sep 2024 17:30:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Nowhere to Live: The Hidden Story of America’s Housing Crisis, author James Burling describes the interesting history of America's housing market. With stories going back to the Civil War, the early twentieth century, and the “urban... Featuring:

James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

--
To register, click the link above.
Click here to read James Burling's blog post.]]>3788environmental law & property r,property lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-environmental-protection-agency--62105304Join this FedSoc Forum as panelists discuss varying views of this case and what the Supreme Court’s review might bring.
Featuring:

Prof. Robin Craig, Robert A. Schroeder Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law
Andre Monette, Managing Partner, Best Best & Krieger LLP
Moderator: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62105304Wed, 25 Sep 2024 16:49:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court recently decided that they will review a case dealing with the Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits the pollution of US waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In order to comply with the...Join this FedSoc Forum as panelists discuss varying views of this case and what the Supreme Court’s review might bring.
Featuring:

Prof. Robin Craig, Robert A. Schroeder Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law
Andre Monette, Managing Partner, Best Best & Krieger LLP
Moderator: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3717environmental & energy law,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-public-lands-rule-will-a-new-conservation-and-landscape-health-paradigm-for-federal-lands-survive-judicial-review--62103003Whether this new rule improperly places “conservation” above other uses of federal lands – for grazing, recreation, energy production, or otherwise – is the subject of heated debate. In this FedSoc Forum, a panel of experts from different vantage points will consider the legal and policy merits of the “Public Lands Rule” and address whether the rule should survive judicial review and/or congressional scrutiny.
Featuring:

Prof. Sam Kalen, Associate Dean, William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law
Jeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts LLP
Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center
Moderator: Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62103003Wed, 25 Sep 2024 13:52:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently adopted comprehensive new land management regulations known as the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,” or simply, “the Public Lands Rule.” The rule has spurred litigation...Whether this new rule improperly places “conservation” above other uses of federal lands – for grazing, recreation, energy production, or otherwise – is the subject of heated debate. In this FedSoc Forum, a panel of experts from different vantage points will consider the legal and policy merits of the “Public Lands Rule” and address whether the rule should survive judicial review and/or congressional scrutiny.
Featuring:

Prof. Sam Kalen, Associate Dean, William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law
Jeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts LLP
Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center
Moderator: Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3744administrative law & regulatio,environmental law & property r,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-short-introduction-to-electronic-discovery--62104866
This program will provide a short introduction to the world of E-Discovery, predominantly in the civil litigation setting. Join us as Prof. Ted Hirt discusses E-Discovery and some related topics: the challenge of "big data," how the Federal Civil Rules deal with E-discovery (including case scheduling and orders), and "proportionality." Additionally, this program will cover topics including dealing with the client, safeguarding privileges, ways to deploy technologies in E-discovery production, and sanctions or measures for the destruction of information.
Featuring:

Prof. Ted Hirt, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62104866Tue, 24 Sep 2024 16:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyPowerPoint Slides This program will provide a short introduction to the world of E-Discovery, predominantly in the civil litigation setting. Join us as Prof. Ted Hirt discusses E-Discovery and some related topics: the challenge of "big data," how...
This program will provide a short introduction to the world of E-Discovery, predominantly in the civil litigation setting. Join us as Prof. Ted Hirt discusses E-Discovery and some related topics: the challenge of "big data," how the Federal Civil Rules deal with E-discovery (including case scheduling and orders), and "proportionality." Additionally, this program will cover topics including dealing with the client, safeguarding privileges, ways to deploy technologies in E-discovery production, and sanctions or measures for the destruction of information.
Featuring:

Prof. Ted Hirt, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
]]>3625administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-free-speech-rights-of-k-12-students--62091226Join us for an update on several of these cases including:

D.A. v Tri-County Area Schools (Michigan student forbidden from wearing a "Let's Go Brandon Sweatshirt.") -
L.M. v Town of Middleborough (Massachusetts school forbade student from wearing "There are only two genders" tshirt).
B.B. v Capistrano Unified School District (California school punished kindergartner over "All Lives Matter" in drawing).

Featuring:

Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
Caleb Trotter, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62091226Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:20:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe free speech rights (or lack thereof) of K-12 students has always been a unique area in the realm of First Amendment litigation. Cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District from 60 years ago established that students do...Join us for an update on several of these cases including:

D.A. v Tri-County Area Schools (Michigan student forbidden from wearing a "Let's Go Brandon Sweatshirt.") -
L.M. v Town of Middleborough (Massachusetts school forbade student from wearing "There are only two genders" tshirt).
B.B. v Capistrano Unified School District (California school punished kindergartner over "All Lives Matter" in drawing).

Featuring:

Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
Caleb Trotter, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together]]>3535education policy,free speech & election law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/conservative-populism-and-the-future-of-the-right-s-relationship-with-organized-labor--62103044 Featuring:

Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Oren Cass, Executive Director, American Compass
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62103044Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 15th, Teamster’s president Sean O’Brien surprised the country by becoming the first head of the nation’s largest labor union to speak at the Republican National Convention. Former president Trump chose J.D. Vance as his... Featuring:

Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Oren Cass, Executive Director, American Compass
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
]]>3921labor & employment law,law & economicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/recent-supreme-court-decisions-implications-for-the-business-world--62029131Featuring:

Charles Bennett, Trial Lawyer, Bennett Legal
Richard Faulker, Attorney, Faulkner ADR Law, Of Counsel, Bennett Legal
Philip J. Loree, Jr., Partner, The Loree Law Firm]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62029131Thu, 19 Sep 2024 15:10:46 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Supreme Court continues to shape arbitration law through a strict interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), with each term introducing new nuances. This program will explore Supreme Court decisions from the latest term and examine...Featuring:

Charles Bennett, Trial Lawyer, Bennett Legal
Richard Faulker, Attorney, Faulkner ADR Law, Of Counsel, Bennett Legal
Philip J. Loree, Jr., Partner, The Loree Law Firm]]>3282cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/judicial-elections-and-free-speech--61982296What are the implications, if any, for restrictions on judicial speech arising from different systems of selecting and retaining judges? How do judicial campaign experiences inform free speech perspectives? Join us for a conversation about how judicial elections intersect with free speech rights.
Featuring:

Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Hon. J. Brett Busby, Justice, Texas Supreme Court
Hon. Daniel Kelly, Former Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court
(Moderator) Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)


Related Reading(s):

Op. Ed By Justice Bolick
Other Materials]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61982296Tue, 17 Sep 2024 18:47:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyJudicial selection in the states is not uniform, but most states have some form of judicial elections. Some are contested elections--whether partisan or nonpartisan--and some involve uncontested retention elections. During an election, judicial...What are the implications, if any, for restrictions on judicial speech arising from different systems of selecting and retaining judges? How do judicial campaign experiences inform free speech perspectives? Join us for a conversation about how judicial elections intersect with free speech rights.
Featuring:

Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Hon. J. Brett Busby, Justice, Texas Supreme Court
Hon. Daniel Kelly, Former Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court
(Moderator) Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)


Related Reading(s):

Op. Ed By Justice Bolick
Other Materials]]>3607free speech & election law,jurisprudence,professional responsibility & cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cle-is-dei-legal-after-the-harvard-case--62091056 DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives have become ubiquitous on campuses and in workplaces across the nation, particularly after the death of George Floyd in late May 2020 and the rapid rise of "anti-racism" initiatives. These efforts, frequently using racially exclusionary or derogatory terminology and eligibility, were considered by some legal experts to be of doubtful legality. But after the Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC (SFFA), DEI practices have come under expanded legal challenge. This program will examine the legal viability of race-focused DEI practices in light of SFFA, reviewing practices, challenges, and case developments.
Featuring:

Giovanni D. Cicione, Chair, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights
Nicole Levitt, Staff Attorney, Women Against Abuse Inc.
(Moderator) Prof. William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Founder of the Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org)

CLE Cost:

$25/Member
$50/Non-Member

To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page.


CLE Info
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/62091056Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyCLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE. DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives have become ubiquitous on campuses and in workplaces across the nation, particularly after the death of George Floyd in late May 2020 and the... DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives have become ubiquitous on campuses and in workplaces across the nation, particularly after the death of George Floyd in late May 2020 and the rapid rise of "anti-racism" initiatives. These efforts, frequently using racially exclusionary or derogatory terminology and eligibility, were considered by some legal experts to be of doubtful legality. But after the Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC (SFFA), DEI practices have come under expanded legal challenge. This program will examine the legal viability of race-focused DEI practices in light of SFFA, reviewing practices, challenges, and case developments.
Featuring:

Giovanni D. Cicione, Chair, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights
Nicole Levitt, Staff Attorney, Women Against Abuse Inc.
(Moderator) Prof. William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Founder of the Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org)

CLE Cost:

$25/Member
$50/Non-Member

To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page.


CLE Info
]]>3660professional responsibility &cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission--61264727Featuring:

Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Judson O. Littleton, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.
For more information on this topic, click here to read our blog.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61264727Wed, 04 Sep 2024 18:26:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Complete Rule in its entirety, finding it exceed FTC’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious. The...Featuring:

Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Judson O. Littleton, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.
For more information on this topic, click here to read our blog.]]>3674corporations,in-house counsel working group,labor & employment law,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/understanding-the-regulatory-landscape-for-private-fund-advisers--61264759 Featuring:

David Blass, Partner, Simpson Thacher
Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Jennifer Choi, CEO, Institutional Limited Partners Association
Moderator: Lindsey Keljo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Head of Asset Management Group, SIFMA

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61264759Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe regulatory landscape for Private Funds has changed dramatically over the past decade, culminating in the SEC’s recent Private Fund Advisers regulation, which was recently struck down by the Fifth Circuit. In the wake of this important court... Featuring:

David Blass, Partner, Simpson Thacher
Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Jennifer Choi, CEO, Institutional Limited Partners Association
Moderator: Lindsey Keljo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Head of Asset Management Group, SIFMA

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3730cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-sec-and-cryptocurrency--61188033Featuring:

Rachel Barnett, CLO of IEX Exchange
Prof. Chris Brummer, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Financial Technology at Georgetown Law
William R. McLucas, Partner, WilmerHale
Brian Richman, Associate, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher
Patrick Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner (Moderator)]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61188033Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:30:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis event will survey the SEC's current involvement in the cryptocurrency field. The conversation will include best practices for defending against SEC enforcement inquiries or investigations in the crypto industry. It will also examine the proactive...Featuring:

Rachel Barnett, CLO of IEX Exchange
Prof. Chris Brummer, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Financial Technology at Georgetown Law
William R. McLucas, Partner, WilmerHale
Brian Richman, Associate, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher
Patrick Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner (Moderator)]]>3794cryptocurrency,financial services & e-commerccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-merck-et-al-v-becerra-et-al--61188003The case was filed on June 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 19, 2023, Merck filed an amended complaint adding its subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC as a second plaintiff. The case is ongoing, with both parties having filed motions for summary judgment.
Join us for a litigation update on Merck et al. v. Becerra et al. with Yaakov M. Roth, one of the lead attorneys at Jones Day representing Merck & Co., Inc.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61188003Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:28:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyPharmaceutical company Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Merck...The case was filed on June 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 19, 2023, Merck filed an amended complaint adding its subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC as a second plaintiff. The case is ongoing, with both parties having filed motions for summary judgment.
Join us for a litigation update on Merck et al. v. Becerra et al. with Yaakov M. Roth, one of the lead attorneys at Jones Day representing Merck & Co., Inc.]]>3351administrative law & regulatio,first amendment,healthcare,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-gonzalez-v-trevino--61187960On June 20, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61187960Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:24:47 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Gonzalez v. Trevino, the plaintiff, Sylvia Gonzalez, argued that her arrest was a retaliatory action violating her First Amendment rights, stemming from her political activities as a newly elected city council member who had organized a petition to...On June 20, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.]]>1087first amendment,fourteenth amendment,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-trump-v-united-states--61187948Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61187948Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:23:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. Former President Trump's legal team argued that a former president should have absolute immunity...Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.]]>3385criminal law & procedure,federalism,litigation,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/do-we-need-qualified-immunity--61187868Featuring:
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Michael Perloff, Interim Legal Director, ACLU
Moderator: Robert McNamara, Deputy Litigation Director, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61187868Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:16:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyQualified immunity is perhaps the nation’s most controversial legal doctrine. Proponents say qualified immunity is necessary to give government officials—especially police—breathing room to act in split-second situations without fear...Featuring:
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Michael Perloff, Interim Legal Director, ACLU
Moderator: Robert McNamara, Deputy Litigation Director, Institute for Justice]]>3397litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/debanking-the-newest-threat-to-free-speech-and-religious-liberty--61187856Featuring:
Hon. Kevin Cramer, U.S. Senator, North Dakota
Hon. Brenda Bird, Attorney General, Iowa
Hon. Sam Brownback, Former U.S. Senator and United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom
Prof. Peter Conti-Brown, Class of 1965 Associate Professor of Financial Regulation at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Nonresident Fellow in Economics Studies at The Brookings Institution
Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Senior Vice President of Corporate Engagement, Alliance Defending Freedom
Moderator: J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61187856Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:14:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June 2023, the Coutts bank closed the account of British politician Nigel Farage. While NatWest, the owner of Coutts, initially claimed that Farage failed to meet the Coutts eligibility criteria of holding £1,000,000 or more in his account,...Featuring:
Hon. Kevin Cramer, U.S. Senator, North Dakota
Hon. Brenda Bird, Attorney General, Iowa
Hon. Sam Brownback, Former U.S. Senator and United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom
Prof. Peter Conti-Brown, Class of 1965 Associate Professor of Financial Regulation at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Nonresident Fellow in Economics Studies at The Brookings Institution
Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Senior Vice President of Corporate Engagement, Alliance Defending Freedom
Moderator: J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding]]>4437financial services & e-commerc,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-united-states-of-america-v-donald-j-trump-waltine-nauta-and-carlos-de-oliveira--61187392https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61187392Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:26:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnited States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira marked the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president. The prosecution, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, argued that Trump illegally retained hundreds of...3661cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/patent-owners-in-the-soup-no-injunction-for-you--61186770Are current patent owners and their licensees taking a risk in believing that their patents will accomplish their raison d’être… affecting the right to exclude? Is it true that patent owners cannot count on their patents to prevent copycat products from entering the market or to allow patent owners or their licensees to charge market prices for their goods? Should injunctive relief be more readily available in patent cases?
This FedSoc forum will explore the history of injunctive relief in patent cases and explain the eBay opinion and how it is currently being applied by the trial courts. This program will also discuss potential legislative proposals to provide regular access to injunctive relief in order to restore patent reliability.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Professor, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Prof. Thomas Cotter, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Nick Matich, Principal, McKool Smith
Hon. Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61186770Wed, 28 Aug 2024 14:28:58 +0000The Federalist SocietySome Intellectual Property experts contend that American patent reliability has been in decline for 20 years. They point to the threat of inter partes review, the misuse of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act, the imposition of reasonable or...Are current patent owners and their licensees taking a risk in believing that their patents will accomplish their raison d’être… affecting the right to exclude? Is it true that patent owners cannot count on their patents to prevent copycat products from entering the market or to allow patent owners or their licensees to charge market prices for their goods? Should injunctive relief be more readily available in patent cases?
This FedSoc forum will explore the history of injunctive relief in patent cases and explain the eBay opinion and how it is currently being applied by the trial courts. This program will also discuss potential legislative proposals to provide regular access to injunctive relief in order to restore patent reliability.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Professor, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Prof. Thomas Cotter, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Nick Matich, Principal, McKool Smith
Hon. Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3588intellectual property,jurisprudencecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/free-exercise-history-and-tradition-and-preferred-pronouns-key-takeaways-from-vlaming-v-west-point-school-board--61175234 Featuring:

Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Kate Carté, Professor of History, Southern Methodist University
Chris Schandevel, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom's Appellate Advocacy Team
Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLC
(Moderator) Eric Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61175234Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyHigh school French teacher Peter Vlaming was fired from his job in West Point, Virginia, for declining to refer to a female student using male pronouns. Vlaming filed suit in state court, alleging that the school board had violated his rights to the... Featuring:

Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Kate Carté, Professor of History, Southern Methodist University
Chris Schandevel, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom's Appellate Advocacy Team
Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLC
(Moderator) Eric Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Law School
]]>4296federalism,religious liberties,state constitutionscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-challenges-to-the-save-plan--61092820The SAVE Plan, more officially titled "Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program.” (88 Fed. Reg. 43,820), seeks to amend the existing Higher Education Act REPAYE Program. It does so in three ways: lowering the cap for repayment relative to a borrower's discretionary income, redefining "discretionary" income, and canceling the loans of borrowers with a principal of $12000 or lower after 10 years of payments, adding a year for every $1000 borrowers had as a principal above that line. The Department of Education estimates these challenges would cost $137.9 billion over the next ten years, with others estimating the cost would be closer to half a trillion dollars.
Much like the HEROES Plan before it, the SAVE Plan has been subject to several challenges that are currently being litigated. Join us for a litigation update where Abhishek Kambli and moderator Sheng Li will sum up the statuses of the ongoing challenges and discuss where they may be going next.
Featuring:

Abhishek Kambli, Deputy Attorney General - Special Litigation and Constitutional Issues, Office of the Kansas Attorney General
(Moderator) Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61092820Tue, 20 Aug 2024 14:36:11 +0000The Federalist SocietySince its earliest days, the Biden Administration has been clear as to its goal of addressing what it sees as a crisis of student debt by forgiving notable segments of existing student loans. To that end, it has pursued several plans -- the attempted...The SAVE Plan, more officially titled "Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program.” (88 Fed. Reg. 43,820), seeks to amend the existing Higher Education Act REPAYE Program. It does so in three ways: lowering the cap for repayment relative to a borrower's discretionary income, redefining "discretionary" income, and canceling the loans of borrowers with a principal of $12000 or lower after 10 years of payments, adding a year for every $1000 borrowers had as a principal above that line. The Department of Education estimates these challenges would cost $137.9 billion over the next ten years, with others estimating the cost would be closer to half a trillion dollars.
Much like the HEROES Plan before it, the SAVE Plan has been subject to several challenges that are currently being litigated. Join us for a litigation update where Abhishek Kambli and moderator Sheng Li will sum up the statuses of the ongoing challenges and discuss where they may be going next.
Featuring:

Abhishek Kambli, Deputy Attorney General - Special Litigation and Constitutional Issues, Office of the Kansas Attorney General
(Moderator) Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>2783administrative law & regulatio,education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-voices-in-administrative-law-ii-the-supreme-court-and-federal-court-jurisdiction--61116734 Featuring:

Eric Bush, Law Clerk to the Hon. Justin Walker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP
Aaron Watt, Law Clerk to the Hon. Brian Miller, Eastern District of Arkansas
[Moderator] Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61116734Mon, 19 Aug 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe development of standing jurisprudence has been inextricably intertwined with the growth of the administrative state over the past 60 years and the bevy of new statutory rights, privileges, obligations, constraints, and interbranch dynamics that... Featuring:

Eric Bush, Law Clerk to the Hon. Justin Walker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP
Aaron Watt, Law Clerk to the Hon. Brian Miller, Eastern District of Arkansas
[Moderator] Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School
]]>3493administrative law & regulatio,federal courtscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/patent-owners-in-the-soup-no-injunction-for-you--61093415 Are current patent owners and their licensees taking a risk in believing that their patents will accomplish their raison d’être… affecting the right to exclude? Is it true that patent owners cannot count on their patents to prevent copycat products from entering the market or to allow patent owners or their licensees to charge market prices for their goods? Should injunctive relief be more readily available in patent cases?
This FedSoc forum will explore the history of injunctive relief in patent cases and explain the eBay opinion and how it is currently being applied by the trial courts. This program will also discuss potential legislative proposals to provide regular access to injunctive relief in order to restore patent reliability.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Professor, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Prof. Thomas Cotter, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Nick Matich, Principal, McKool Smith
Hon. Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61093415Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietySome Intellectual Property experts contend that American patent reliability has been in decline for 20 years. They point to the threat of inter partes review, the misuse of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act, the imposition of reasonable or... Are current patent owners and their licensees taking a risk in believing that their patents will accomplish their raison d’être… affecting the right to exclude? Is it true that patent owners cannot count on their patents to prevent copycat products from entering the market or to allow patent owners or their licensees to charge market prices for their goods? Should injunctive relief be more readily available in patent cases?
This FedSoc forum will explore the history of injunctive relief in patent cases and explain the eBay opinion and how it is currently being applied by the trial courts. This program will also discuss potential legislative proposals to provide regular access to injunctive relief in order to restore patent reliability.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Professor, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Prof. Thomas Cotter, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Nick Matich, Principal, McKool Smith
Hon. Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3588intellectual property,jurisprudencecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-first-amendment-in-trademark-law-after-vidal-v-elster--61093346 Featuring:

Prof. Barbara Lauriat, Associate Professor of Law & Dean’s Scholar in Intellectual Property, Texas Tech University School of Law
Prof. Lisa Ramsey, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61093346Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:00:18 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Vidal v. Elster (the “Trump Too Small” case), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal limitation on registering trademarks that include other people’s names. All the Justices agreed that, though the limitation was... Featuring:

Prof. Barbara Lauriat, Associate Professor of Law & Dean’s Scholar in Intellectual Property, Texas Tech University School of Law
Prof. Lisa Ramsey, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law
]]>3747intellectual property,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/certification-of-state-law-questions-by-federal-courts--61026895 Federal court certification of state law questions to state high courts is a thorny issue with competing concerns. All states but North Carolina permit certification, but the federal courts control which questions presented in the case it certifies for resolution. State courts are free to decline to answer the questions certified and to do so after a period of months, as happened in Lindenberg. Some experts point out that even when the state court chooses to answer the questions certified, the process can be time consuming and inefficient.Our panel will explore the issues of federalism, efficiency, and prudence presented when considering the question certification process between federal and state courts.
Featuring:

Hon. Rachel Wainer Apter, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New Jersey
Hon. Benjamin Beaton, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Hon. Sarah Keeton Campbell, Justice, Supreme Court of Tennessee
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61026895Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:30:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (2018), the Sixth Circuit declared unconstitutional Tennessee’s law capping punitive damages based on the Tennessee constitution. But in the wake of Lindenberg, Tennessee state courts... Federal court certification of state law questions to state high courts is a thorny issue with competing concerns. All states but North Carolina permit certification, but the federal courts control which questions presented in the case it certifies for resolution. State courts are free to decline to answer the questions certified and to do so after a period of months, as happened in Lindenberg. Some experts point out that even when the state court chooses to answer the questions certified, the process can be time consuming and inefficient.Our panel will explore the issues of federalism, efficiency, and prudence presented when considering the question certification process between federal and state courts.
Featuring:

Hon. Rachel Wainer Apter, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New Jersey
Hon. Benjamin Beaton, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Hon. Sarah Keeton Campbell, Justice, Supreme Court of Tennessee
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

---
To register, click the link above.]]>3694federal courts,federalism,state constitutionscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/free-exercise-and-abortion--60971478 Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law
Prof. Jessie Hill, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Michael Moreland, Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60971478Tue, 06 Aug 2024 16:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), pro-choice advocates have argued that restrictions on abortion violate freedom of religion in some circumstances. A recent decision by the... Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law
Prof. Jessie Hill, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Michael Moreland, Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
]]>3731civil rights,first amendment,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-is-the-role-of-the-itc-in-patent-cases--61013917 Featuring:

Prof. Jorge L. Contreras, James T. Jensen Endowed Professor for Transactional Law & Director of the Program on Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Prof. Michael Doane, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law
Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Stevenson Bernard Professor, George Washington University Law School, and Former Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission
Moderator: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/61013917Tue, 06 Aug 2024 16:00:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), long a favored forum for patent infringement disputes, has recently come under fire for duplicating the functions of the federal courts where patents disputes – often the same ones that are before... Featuring:

Prof. Jorge L. Contreras, James T. Jensen Endowed Professor for Transactional Law & Director of the Program on Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Prof. Michael Doane, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law
Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Stevenson Bernard Professor, George Washington University Law School, and Former Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission
Moderator: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3664cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-discussion-of-labor-law-is-the-taft-hartley-act-being-interpreted-as-written--60950477 Featuring:

Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board
Hon. John F. Ring, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, former Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60950477Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, doggedly opposed by organized labor, included compliance with practicable portions of the federal rules of evidence and civil procedure, barring the Board from treating supervisors... Featuring:

Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board
Hon. John F. Ring, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, former Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board
]]>3722labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/private-attorneys-general-bridging-gaps-in-law-enforcement--60904158 Featuring:
Judd Stone II, Former Solicitor General, Texas
Andrew Davis, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Moderator: Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60904158Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyShould private attorneys general enforce laws? Proponents argue that this approach allows individuals and private entities to act in the public interest, supplementing often overburdened or under-resourced government agencies. This can lead to more... Featuring:
Judd Stone II, Former Solicitor General, Texas
Andrew Davis, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Moderator: Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC]]>3580litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/crypto-data-centers-and-climate--60937070 In response to the EIA’s action, several leaders of the crypto community filed suit, swiftly securing a preliminary injunction of EIA’s “emergency” action. This panel will discuss the litigation to date, the growth of crypto, Bitcoin mining, and the impact its data centers may be having on electric demand and the environment. What might EIA have planned in the future? What are states already doing? And are there implications for the burgeoning datacenter demands anticipated by the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
Featuring:

Thomas Cmar, Senior Attorney of the Clean Energy Program, Earthjustice
Ewelina Czapla, Director of Energy Policy, Chamber of Digital Commerce, Digital Power Network
Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Jonathan Brightbill, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP

---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60937070Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn January 2024, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) initiated an “emergency collection” of information about the electricity consumption of leading cryptocurrency mining companies operating in the United States. EIA’s... In response to the EIA’s action, several leaders of the crypto community filed suit, swiftly securing a preliminary injunction of EIA’s “emergency” action. This panel will discuss the litigation to date, the growth of crypto, Bitcoin mining, and the impact its data centers may be having on electric demand and the environment. What might EIA have planned in the future? What are states already doing? And are there implications for the burgeoning datacenter demands anticipated by the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
Featuring:

Thomas Cmar, Senior Attorney of the Clean Energy Program, Earthjustice
Ewelina Czapla, Director of Energy Policy, Chamber of Digital Commerce, Digital Power Network
Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Moderator: Jonathan Brightbill, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP

---
To register, click the link above.]]>3630cryptocurrency,environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-annual-supreme-court-round-up--60878112 On Thursday, July 25, the Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter gathered for the annual Supreme Court Round Up discussing the 2023-2024 term.
Featuring:

Hon. Paul D. ClementPartner,Clement & Murphy PLLC
Mayflower Hotel (Grand Ballroom)1127 Connecticut Ave NWWashington, D.C. 20036
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60878112Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, July 25, the Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter gathered for the annual Supreme Court Round Up discussing the 2023-2024 term. Featuring: Hon. Paul D. ClementPartner,Clement & Murphy PLLC Mayflower Hotel (Grand Ballroom)1127... On Thursday, July 25, the Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter gathered for the annual Supreme Court Round Up discussing the 2023-2024 term.
Featuring:

Hon. Paul D. ClementPartner,Clement & Murphy PLLC
Mayflower Hotel (Grand Ballroom)1127 Connecticut Ave NWWashington, D.C. 20036
]]>4806supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-roman-catholic-diocese-of-albany-v-vullo--60846867
Featuring:

Lori Windham, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60846867Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2017, New York passed a law requiring employers to cover abortions in their health insurance plans. New York initially planned to exempt religious employers with sincere religious objections but later changed the exemption to protect only religious...
Featuring:

Lori Windham, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General
]]>3543civil rights,healthcare,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-law-policy-and-politics-of-rescheduling-cannabis--60781178Featuring:

Prof. Douglas Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
Dr. Bertha K. Madras, Professor of Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
(Moderator) Paul James Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60781178Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:20:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe legal status of cannabis has been a controversial issue ever since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) prohibited its distribution under federal law. That act classified cannabis as a Schedule I drug, a category for drugs that have no...Featuring:

Prof. Douglas Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
Dr. Bertha K. Madras, Professor of Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
(Moderator) Paul James Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation]]>3534administrative law & regulatio,healthcarecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-ohio-v-epa--60780807Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.
Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.
Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60780807Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:42:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn October of 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards for air quality, some of which had to do with air pollution which is carried across state borders, from “upwind” states to “downwind” states....Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.
Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.
Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC]]>4048administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/discussing-garland-v-cargill--60817653 The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024.
Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence.
Featuring:

Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Prof. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco
(Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60817653Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyGarland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of... The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024.
Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence.
Featuring:

Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Prof. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco
(Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
]]>3675administrative law & regulatio,criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-us-v-apple--60863895 As this litigation progresses, what are likely to be the most hotly contested—and possibly determinative—issues of fact and law? How will they affect the outcome of the case, including with respect to potential remedies, and further development of the law of monopolization? And, considering how the Apple complaint fits into the Biden Administration’s view of competition in high-tech platform markets, what impact could a potential change in Administrations have?

Featuring:

Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, Associate Dean for Research, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law
Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, former Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Moderator: Deborah Garza, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60863895Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn March of this year, the U.S. Justice Department and 16 states filed a sweeping complaint against Apple alleging that it has monopolized and attempted to monopolize US markets for smartphones and “performance” smartphones. At issue is an... As this litigation progresses, what are likely to be the most hotly contested—and possibly determinative—issues of fact and law? How will they affect the outcome of the case, including with respect to potential remedies, and further development of the law of monopolization? And, considering how the Apple complaint fits into the Biden Administration’s view of competition in high-tech platform markets, what impact could a potential change in Administrations have?

Featuring:

Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, Associate Dean for Research, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law
Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, former Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Moderator: Deborah Garza, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3501corporations,litigation,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-hile-v-michigan--60778848Learn about the broader implications for religious freedom, the precedent set by recent Supreme Court decisions, and the potential ripple effects across other states with similar provisions. Don’t miss this opportunity to understand the constitutional arguments and engage in a pivotal discussion on the future of educational rights and religious liberties in America.
Featuring:
Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60778848Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:39:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for a webinar featuring Manhattan Institute fellow Tim Rosenberger, who will delve into the landmark case of Hile v. Michigan. On November 6th, 2023, the Sixth Circuit upheld Michigan's Blaine Amendment, which bars public financial support for...Learn about the broader implications for religious freedom, the precedent set by recent Supreme Court decisions, and the potential ripple effects across other states with similar provisions. Don’t miss this opportunity to understand the constitutional arguments and engage in a pivotal discussion on the future of educational rights and religious liberties in America.
Featuring:
Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute]]>3529civil rights,constitution,religious liberty,school choicecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ftc-s-interim-pharmacy-benefit-manager-report-assessing-vigor--60863900 Featuring:

Rani Habash, Partner, Dechert
Dan Gilman, Senior Scholar, Competition Policy, International Center for Law & Economics, Former Attorney Advisor, FTC Office of Policy Planning
Professor Mike Shor, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics
Moderator: Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley, Former Attorney Advisor, FTC Office of Policy Planning

--
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60863900Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 9th, the Federal Trade Commission released a Staff Interim Report on the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Industry. This panel will discuss the state of the PBM marketplace, the staff’s key findings, Commission statements surrounding the... Featuring:

Rani Habash, Partner, Dechert
Dan Gilman, Senior Scholar, Competition Policy, International Center for Law & Economics, Former Attorney Advisor, FTC Office of Policy Planning
Professor Mike Shor, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics
Moderator: Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley, Former Attorney Advisor, FTC Office of Policy Planning

--
To register, click the link above.]]>3824corporations,healthcare,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-ohio-v-epa--60780799 Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.
Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.
Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60780799Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:30:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn October of 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards for air quality, some of which had to do with air pollution which is carried across state borders, from “upwind” states to “downwind” states.... Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.
Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.
Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC
]]>4048administrative law & regulatio,environmental & energy lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-happening-with-apprenticeship-recent-regulatory-and-subregulatory-actions--60778405 In this webinar, a panel of experts will compare the two approaches. The panel will also provide insights on the pending apprenticeship rulemaking, including new potential regulatory requirements in the DEI area. The panel will also discuss the heavy reliance on a combination of regulatory and subregulatory guidance in the apprenticeship area, including in implementing green energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, and how this may be impacted by the recent Loper Bright and Relentless decisions ending Chevron deference.
Featuring:

Ryan Craig, Managing Director, Achieve Partners
Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
Hon. John Pallasch, Founder and CEO, One Workforce Solutions
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee
(Moderator) Craig Leen, Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60778405Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyApprenticeship has been a significant focus of the Biden administration, and previously the Trump administration, with each taking markedly different approaches. The Trump Administration expanded apprenticeship through regulations making programs... In this webinar, a panel of experts will compare the two approaches. The panel will also provide insights on the pending apprenticeship rulemaking, including new potential regulatory requirements in the DEI area. The panel will also discuss the heavy reliance on a combination of regulatory and subregulatory guidance in the apprenticeship area, including in implementing green energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, and how this may be impacted by the recent Loper Bright and Relentless decisions ending Chevron deference.
Featuring:

Ryan Craig, Managing Director, Achieve Partners
Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
Hon. John Pallasch, Founder and CEO, One Workforce Solutions
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee
(Moderator) Craig Leen, Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director
]]>3726cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-sec-v-jarkesy--60706563The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.
Featuring:

Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

---
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60706563Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:49:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate...The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.
Featuring:

Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

---
To register, click the link above.]]>2418cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-moyle-v-united-states--60720795 Join Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Center for Life & Regulatory Practice at Alliance Defending Freedom, for a breakdown of this decision and its implications on the legal issues surrounding abortion in the post-Roe era.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60720795Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFollowing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Idaho, arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts a... Join Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Center for Life & Regulatory Practice at Alliance Defending Freedom, for a breakdown of this decision and its implications on the legal issues surrounding abortion in the post-Roe era.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
]]>2615civil rights,healthcare,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-corner-post-inc-v-board-of-governors-of-the-federal-reserve-system--60644341Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that sought to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment.
This 6-3 decision held that a claim under the APA does not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
Please join us as we discuss the case and decision recently released by the Court.
Featuring:

Molly Nixon, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

---
For more information, check out this blog post by Michael J. Showalter.
To register, click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60644341Tue, 09 Jul 2024 17:05:03 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asked whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues”...Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that sought to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment.
This 6-3 decision held that a claim under the APA does not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
Please join us as we discuss the case and decision recently released by the Court.
Featuring:

Molly Nixon, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

---
For more information, check out this blog post by Michael J. Showalter.
To register, click the link above.]]>3609cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/antitrust-law-down-on-the-farm-farmers-food-inflation-and-a-fair-deal--60673845
Featuring:

Mark Dopp, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, North American Meat Institute
U.S. Congressman Brad Finstad, (MN-01)
Joe Maxwell, President, Board of Directors, Farm Action
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60673845Tue, 09 Jul 2024 16:00:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe marked inflation of food pricing is apparent upon any trip to the grocery store. Can new regulations aimed at governing the relationship between farmers and the corporations to which they sell their livestock help bring food prices down while...
Featuring:

Mark Dopp, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, North American Meat Institute
U.S. Congressman Brad Finstad, (MN-01)
Joe Maxwell, President, Board of Directors, Farm Action
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade
]]>3717administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-netchoice-cases--60673755 In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenged Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenged the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Florida, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, creating a Circuit split. In light of that split the Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral argument in both cases on February 26, 2024. On July 1, 2024, a 9-0 court released its decision vacating both judgments based on a lack of "proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges" and remanding them for reconsideration.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60673755Mon, 08 Jul 2024 16:00:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyTwo cases involving NetChoice, a company that represents social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok, were heard and decided by the Supreme Court this term. Both cases concern issues of free speech and social media platforms. In... In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenged Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenged the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Florida, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, creating a Circuit split. In light of that split the Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral argument in both cases on February 26, 2024. On July 1, 2024, a 9-0 court released its decision vacating both judgments based on a lack of "proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges" and remanding them for reconsideration.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
]]>2671free speech & election law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-fischer-v-united-states--60635346 Petitioners in the case were Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller, who were involved with the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. Based on their actions that day they were charged with a variety of charges including one count of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2). Appellees did not contest the other charges but moved to dismiss the charge mentioned above, arguing §1512 (c) is ambiguous concerning (c)(2) and (c)(1). The district court agreed. Upon appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral arguments on April 16, 2024. A 6-3 Court, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, released its opinion on June 28, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion and Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60635346Wed, 03 Jul 2024 16:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyFischer v. United States concerned whether to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) — a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an... Petitioners in the case were Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller, who were involved with the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. Based on their actions that day they were charged with a variety of charges including one count of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2). Appellees did not contest the other charges but moved to dismiss the charge mentioned above, arguing §1512 (c) is ambiguous concerning (c)(2) and (c)(1). The district court agreed. Upon appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral arguments on April 16, 2024. A 6-3 Court, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, released its opinion on June 28, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion and Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC
]]>3385criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson--60635287 On June 28, 2024 a 6-3 Court issued its decision, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision of this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights.
Featuring:

Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60635287Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:00:57 +0000The Federalist SocietyCity of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson raised the question of whether the sections of the Grants Pass Municipal Code which prohibit sleeping/camping on public property like parks and streets constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by... On June 28, 2024 a 6-3 Court issued its decision, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision of this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights.
Featuring:

Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
]]>3096criminal law & procedure,environmental law & property r,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-loper-bright-relentless--60635261 In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.
On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.
Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.
Featuring:

Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60635261Mon, 01 Jul 2024 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyChevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while... In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.
On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.
Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.
Featuring:

Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
]]>3678administrative law & regulatio,article i initiative,regulatory transparency projec,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-united-states-v-rahimi--60567077Zackey Rahimi was found in possession of a rifle and pistol while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, a protective order that specifically barred him from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (a federal statute that makes it illegal for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a firearm).
Rahimi challenged that indictment, arguing the law is facially unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. Initially, both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and the Court heard oral argument in the case on November 7, 2023.
On June 21, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60567077Mon, 01 Jul 2024 15:30:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnited States v. Rahimi raised the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face. Zackey Rahimi was...Zackey Rahimi was found in possession of a rifle and pistol while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, a protective order that specifically barred him from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (a federal statute that makes it illegal for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a firearm).
Rahimi challenged that indictment, arguing the law is facially unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. Initially, both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and the Court heard oral argument in the case on November 7, 2023.
On June 21, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel]]>3617criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-aaer-v-fearless-fund--60675814 The Alliance sought an injunction pending appeal, which a split panel of the Eleventh Circuit granted. The court concluded that the Alliance had “clearly shown the existence of a contractual regime,” which brought the case “within the realm of §1981.” The Court then rejected Fearless’ First Amendment argument, emphasizing that the Constitution “does not give [Fearless] the right to exclude persons from a contractual regime based on their race.” On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court, with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Fearless Fund, holding that (1) the Alliance has standing and (2) that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate because Fearless’s contest is substantially likely to violate § 1981, is substantially unlikely to enjoy First Amendment protection, and inflicts irreparable injury.
Joining us to discuss this litigation and ruling is the Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, who filed an amicus brief alongside the American Civil Rights Project and Buckeye Institute in support of the Alliance.
Featuring:

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60675814Fri, 28 Jun 2024 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Fearless Fund ran the “Strivers Grant Contest,” which awards $20,000 and other benefits “only to black females.” Last year, the American Alliance for Equal Rights sued Fearless, claiming its racially discriminatory contest... The Alliance sought an injunction pending appeal, which a split panel of the Eleventh Circuit granted. The court concluded that the Alliance had “clearly shown the existence of a contractual regime,” which brought the case “within the realm of §1981.” The Court then rejected Fearless’ First Amendment argument, emphasizing that the Constitution “does not give [Fearless] the right to exclude persons from a contractual regime based on their race.” On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court, with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Fearless Fund, holding that (1) the Alliance has standing and (2) that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate because Fearless’s contest is substantially likely to violate § 1981, is substantially unlikely to enjoy First Amendment protection, and inflicts irreparable injury.
Joining us to discuss this litigation and ruling is the Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, who filed an amicus brief alongside the American Civil Rights Project and Buckeye Institute in support of the Alliance.
Featuring:

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute
]]>1393affirmative action,civil rights,constitutioncleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/current-future-uses-of-the-impeachment-power--60580221 Featuring:


Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of Law


Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University


(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60580221Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyCongress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to... Featuring:


Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of Law


Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University


(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

]]>3745federalism,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-fda-v-ahm--60567225 The suit challenged the FDA’s 2000 decision to legalize mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs often used in conjunction as chemical abortifacients, and regulation of the drugs thereafter. The case rose through the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in favor of AHM. The Supreme Court granted cert, heard Oral Argument on March 26, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued a 9-0 decision holding the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60567225Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:00:25 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn November 2022, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, against the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of the Alliance of... The suit challenged the FDA’s 2000 decision to legalize mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs often used in conjunction as chemical abortifacients, and regulation of the drugs thereafter. The case rose through the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in favor of AHM. The Supreme Court granted cert, heard Oral Argument on March 26, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued a 9-0 decision holding the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law
]]>3471administrative law & regulatio,litigation,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-starbucks-corp-v-mckinney--60769872 The Court heard oral argument in the case on April 23, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued its decision, vacating the decision of the Sixth Circuit and remanding it for further proceedings. Justice Thomas wrote the decision for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson wrote an opinion dissenting in part, concurring in part, and concurring in judgment.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60769872Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyStarbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of labor and administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The question before the... The Court heard oral argument in the case on April 23, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued its decision, vacating the decision of the Sixth Circuit and remanding it for further proceedings. Justice Thomas wrote the decision for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson wrote an opinion dissenting in part, concurring in part, and concurring in judgment.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
]]>3427administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-vidal-v-elster--60503303 The Supreme Court has now decided Vidal v. Elster, in which it adopted this question presented: “Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [Lanham Act section 2(c)] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” At issue was an application to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL on various clothing items. Lanham Act section 2(c) prohibits registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.” The Federal Circuit held that this proscription violates the Free Speech Clause as applied in this mark-registration application.
This Courthouse Steps presentation will discuss the background leading to Vidal v. Elster, review the Court's decision, and discuss its implications for trademark law and free speech.

Featuring:

Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP
Moderator: John B. Farmer, Attorney, Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60503303Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent years, the Supreme Court has decided two cases in which it held that certain restrictions against registering certain kinds of marks violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam (2017), it invalidated the Lanham Act... The Supreme Court has now decided Vidal v. Elster, in which it adopted this question presented: “Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [Lanham Act section 2(c)] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” At issue was an application to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL on various clothing items. Lanham Act section 2(c) prohibits registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.” The Federal Circuit held that this proscription violates the Free Speech Clause as applied in this mark-registration application.
This Courthouse Steps presentation will discuss the background leading to Vidal v. Elster, review the Court's decision, and discuss its implications for trademark law and free speech.

Featuring:

Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP
Moderator: John B. Farmer, Attorney, Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC
]]>3556free speech & election law,intellectual property,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-becerra-v-san-carlos-apache-tribe--60495008 The San Carlos Apache Tribe, exercising its sovereignty in Arizona, managed its healthcare programs and billed outside insurers directly. However, the Tribe encountered difficulties funding the additional healthcare services from third-party revenue because IHS would not pay CSCs for these transactions. The Tribe sued the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, IHS, and the United States for the CSC for the years 2011–2013. The district court dismissed the Tribe’s claim for the third-party-revenue-funded portions of the Tribe’s healthcare program from CSC reimbursement, and the Tribe appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the statutory text of 25 U.S.C. § 5325(a) warranted a reversal of the dismissal and remanded further proceedings.
The Court heard oral arguments on March 25, 2024, and ruled in the case on June 6, 2024, affirming the Ninth Circuit's holding in a 5-4 decision.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Jennifer H. Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60495008Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA), which allows Native tribes to administer their healthcare programs instead of the Indian Health Service (IHS), also requires IHS to pay “contract support costs” (CSCs) to... The San Carlos Apache Tribe, exercising its sovereignty in Arizona, managed its healthcare programs and billed outside insurers directly. However, the Tribe encountered difficulties funding the additional healthcare services from third-party revenue because IHS would not pay CSCs for these transactions. The Tribe sued the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, IHS, and the United States for the CSC for the years 2011–2013. The district court dismissed the Tribe’s claim for the third-party-revenue-funded portions of the Tribe’s healthcare program from CSC reimbursement, and the Tribe appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the statutory text of 25 U.S.C. § 5325(a) warranted a reversal of the dismissal and remanded further proceedings.
The Court heard oral arguments on March 25, 2024, and ruled in the case on June 6, 2024, affirming the Ninth Circuit's holding in a 5-4 decision.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Jennifer H. Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
]]>2056litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-thornell-v-jones--60494946 The Supreme Court heard argument in Thornell v. Jones on April 17, 2024, and issued a decision on May 30, 2024, overturning the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the grounds that it incorrectly interpreted and applied the relevant precedent of Strickland v. Washington.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze this decision and what its ramifications may be.
Featuring:

Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60494946Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1992, Danny Lee Jones was convicted of two first-degree murder charges and one attempted premeditated murder charge by a trial court in Arizona and was sentenced to death. Mr. Jones appealed, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld his sentence.... The Supreme Court heard argument in Thornell v. Jones on April 17, 2024, and issued a decision on May 30, 2024, overturning the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the grounds that it incorrectly interpreted and applied the relevant precedent of Strickland v. Washington.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze this decision and what its ramifications may be.
Featuring:

Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
]]>2652criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-conversation-about-supreme-court-ethics-and-journalistic-integrity--60350764 Featuring:

Dan Mclaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner & Co-Chair, Constitutional and Apellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60350764Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor several weeks, much media attention has focused on reports of flags flown outside the primary residence and vacation home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Several publications assert that the flags are associated with support for the... Featuring:

Dan Mclaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner & Co-Chair, Constitutional and Apellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
]]>3459cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-policy-roundup--60350233 Featuring:

Johnathan Smith, Vice President and Legal Director, MacArthur Justice Center
Hon. Keith Sonderling, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner
Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60350233Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 30, 2023, President Biden signed the most far-reaching presidential action in AI, Executive Order 14,110, Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The EO directs dozens of federal agencies to take over... Featuring:

Johnathan Smith, Vice President and Legal Director, MacArthur Justice Center
Hon. Keith Sonderling, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner
Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
]]>3470administrative law & regulatio,regulatory transparency projeccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/abortion-and-ivf-post-dobbs-lepage-mayes-etc--60341305 These recent rulings have been highly criticized by commentators on both sides of the aisle, and they raise important questions about the legal status of IVF and abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For example, in both cases, the courts interpreted the law in accordance with textualist principles, and the state legislatures swiftly enacted measures to address the state supreme court decisions afterward. Are these cases therefore examples of the proper allocation of powers, where the judiciary says what the law is, and the legislature is tasked with implementing policy? With the question of abortion being returned to the legislative process post-Dobbs, do these cases invite more thoughtful dialogue about abortion and IVF policy, or do they sow further acrimony? Were these cases rightly decided? Can we articulate a legal standard vis-à-vis abortion and IVF that is both thoughtful and conceptually consistent? In what ways do abortion and IVF interact, both philosophically and legally? Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars in this space.
Featuring:

Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law & Deputy Dean; Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics; Harvard University Law School
Prof. O. Carter Snead, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Jennie Bradley Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60341305Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySince Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state courts and legislatures have grappled with its legal and policy implications, especially as they pertain to abortion and IVF. In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, for example,... These recent rulings have been highly criticized by commentators on both sides of the aisle, and they raise important questions about the legal status of IVF and abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For example, in both cases, the courts interpreted the law in accordance with textualist principles, and the state legislatures swiftly enacted measures to address the state supreme court decisions afterward. Are these cases therefore examples of the proper allocation of powers, where the judiciary says what the law is, and the legislature is tasked with implementing policy? With the question of abortion being returned to the legislative process post-Dobbs, do these cases invite more thoughtful dialogue about abortion and IVF policy, or do they sow further acrimony? Were these cases rightly decided? Can we articulate a legal standard vis-à-vis abortion and IVF that is both thoughtful and conceptually consistent? In what ways do abortion and IVF interact, both philosophically and legally? Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars in this space.
Featuring:

Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law & Deputy Dean; Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics; Harvard University Law School
Prof. O. Carter Snead, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Jennie Bradley Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America
]]>3602federalism & separation of pow,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-nra-v-vullo--60341044 Join us for a panel discussion breaking down and analyzing this case and what can be expected, especially in light of the fact Murthy has yet to be decided.
Featuring:

Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Robert Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIRE
Vera Eidelman, Staff Attorney, Speech, Technology, and Privacy Project, ACLU
John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60341044Wed, 05 Jun 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo. In a 9-0 decision, the Court sided with the NRA, affirming the actions taken by New York Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo violated... Join us for a panel discussion breaking down and analyzing this case and what can be expected, especially in light of the fact Murthy has yet to be decided.
Featuring:

Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Robert Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIRE
Vera Eidelman, Staff Attorney, Speech, Technology, and Privacy Project, ACLU
John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
]]>3659free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-trump-new-york-verdict-constitutional-legal-and-prudential-questions--60341090 Following the verdict, Bragg pointed to the prosecution’s methodical presentation of “extensive hard evidence” in support of the outcome. Some legal experts agree. Others, however, have criticized the DA’s case and predict it will be overturned on appeal for any of several reasons. These include questions about Judge Merchan's impartiality, the prosecution’s legal theory, the evidence allowed and not allowed at trial, and the jury instructions. One much-discussed question, for example, is that Manhattan District Attorney Bragg’s case charged Trump with a felony records violation, but he did not specify until his closing argument what other crime(s) the records violations were designed to conceal. Moreover Judge Merchan's jury instructions told the jury that they need not agree on that question, but instead that they only had to agree that the violations were designed to conceal a crime. Was this correct as a matter of statutory and constitutional law? In addition, there are questions about whether some of the conduct alleged actually constituted a crime, for either statutory or constitutional reasons. There are also important questions about the propriety and prudence of bringing charges of this type against a former President of the opposite party from that of the other actors in the system. Finally, there are many important questions about what happens next.
Join us for an expert discussion of this historic case and its wide-ranging legal and prudential implications.
Featuring:

Sarah Isgur, Senior Editor, The Dispatch
Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60341090Wed, 05 Jun 2024 14:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyA New York City jury recently convicted former President Donald Trump of 34 criminal counts of falsifying business documents. In New York, it is a misdemeanor to falsify business records with “the intent to defraud,” a crime with a two... Following the verdict, Bragg pointed to the prosecution’s methodical presentation of “extensive hard evidence” in support of the outcome. Some legal experts agree. Others, however, have criticized the DA’s case and predict it will be overturned on appeal for any of several reasons. These include questions about Judge Merchan's impartiality, the prosecution’s legal theory, the evidence allowed and not allowed at trial, and the jury instructions. One much-discussed question, for example, is that Manhattan District Attorney Bragg’s case charged Trump with a felony records violation, but he did not specify until his closing argument what other crime(s) the records violations were designed to conceal. Moreover Judge Merchan's jury instructions told the jury that they need not agree on that question, but instead that they only had to agree that the violations were designed to conceal a crime. Was this correct as a matter of statutory and constitutional law? In addition, there are questions about whether some of the conduct alleged actually constituted a crime, for either statutory or constitutional reasons. There are also important questions about the propriety and prudence of bringing charges of this type against a former President of the opposite party from that of the other actors in the system. Finally, there are many important questions about what happens next.
Join us for an expert discussion of this historic case and its wide-ranging legal and prudential implications.
Featuring:

Sarah Isgur, Senior Editor, The Dispatch
Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
]]>3707criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-national-institute-of-standards-and-technology-s-new-proposal-on-march-in-a-price-control-vehicle--60365897
In addition to its core function allowing universities and other contractors to retain ownership of inventions created with federal funds, this law authorizes, under very specific circumstances, the funding agency (e.g., the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Department of Energy) to grant licenses, without authorization of the patent owner, to any inventions made with funding provided by the agency. The proposed new guidelines would add the price of the end-product derived from those early-stage inventions to the list of specific circumstances.

Since its enactment in 1980, the march-in power of the Bayh-Dole Act has never been used. When asked about using the price of the end product as one of the circumstances, the law’s namesake Senators, Birch Bayh and Bob Dole, stated the text of their law did not authorize price-based march-in. Importantly, the NIH has rejected numerous petitions over the past several decades to use the march-in power to lower the prices of patented drugs or medical devices. Proponents of the new regulatory guidelines, however, argue that the statute does authorize an agency to consider price as a march-in trigger and the Biden Administration argues that march-in is a key tool to lower drug prices.

This panel discussed the regulatory proposal for price controls under the Bayh-Dole Act and other vehicles (e.g., the IRA and reasonable/reference pricing clauses in licenses or collaborative research agreements), whether they represent regulatory overreach by the Executive Branch, and whether it is wise policy to implement price controls on drugs and other products or services in the U.S. innovation economy.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60365897Thu, 23 May 2024 17:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Biden Administration recently proposed new regulatory guidelines that would permit agencies to impose price controls on products based on inventions derived from upstream federally funded research. The new regulations would affect such price...
In addition to its core function allowing universities and other contractors to retain ownership of inventions created with federal funds, this law authorizes, under very specific circumstances, the funding agency (e.g., the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Department of Energy) to grant licenses, without authorization of the patent owner, to any inventions made with funding provided by the agency. The proposed new guidelines would add the price of the end-product derived from those early-stage inventions to the list of specific circumstances.

Since its enactment in 1980, the march-in power of the Bayh-Dole Act has never been used. When asked about using the price of the end product as one of the circumstances, the law’s namesake Senators, Birch Bayh and Bob Dole, stated the text of their law did not authorize price-based march-in. Importantly, the NIH has rejected numerous petitions over the past several decades to use the march-in power to lower the prices of patented drugs or medical devices. Proponents of the new regulatory guidelines, however, argue that the statute does authorize an agency to consider price as a march-in trigger and the Biden Administration argues that march-in is a key tool to lower drug prices.

This panel discussed the regulatory proposal for price controls under the Bayh-Dole Act and other vehicles (e.g., the IRA and reasonable/reference pricing clauses in licenses or collaborative research agreements), whether they represent regulatory overreach by the Executive Branch, and whether it is wise policy to implement price controls on drugs and other products or services in the U.S. innovation economy.]]>3578cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/does-ranked-choice-voting-help-or-hurt--60302433
Featuring:

Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election Confidence
Dr. Martha Kropf, Professor, Political Science and Public Administration, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Walter K. Olson, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60302433Thu, 23 May 2024 16:00:11 +0000The Federalist SocietyRanked choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting, is a voting method where voters select several candidates in the order of preference on a single ballot. Ranked choice voting has been used by certain states, cities, and political party...
Featuring:

Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election Confidence
Dr. Martha Kropf, Professor, Political Science and Public Administration, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Walter K. Olson, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney
]]>3641free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bail-reform-illinois-experience-after-9-months--60188750 Featuring:

Robert Berlin, State’s Attorney, DuPage County, Illinois
Hon. Eugene Doherty, Appellate Court Justice, Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District
Dr. David Olson, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology & Co-Director, Center for Criminal Justice, Loyola University Chicago
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60188750Mon, 20 May 2024 19:00:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyBalancing safety and justice is especially challenging in the pretrial context where difficult decisions must be made quickly while evidence is still being gathered. In September 2023, an overhaul of Illinois’ pretrial system went into effect,... Featuring:

Robert Berlin, State’s Attorney, DuPage County, Illinois
Hon. Eugene Doherty, Appellate Court Justice, Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District
Dr. David Olson, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology & Co-Director, Center for Criminal Justice, Loyola University Chicago
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
]]>3619criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-patent-eligibility-doctrine-in-need-of-reform--60149918https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60149918Thu, 16 May 2024 18:00:04 +0000The Federalist SocietyBetween 2010-2014, the Supreme Court handed down four decisions resulting in the Mayo-Alice two-step test for what counts as an invention or discovery eligible for patent protection. In the ensuing decade, the issue of whether this test is...3695cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-sagebrush-rebels-and-western-states-challenge-presidential-monument-designations--60149873
Over time, modern Presidents have expanded their authority under the Antiquities Act, interpreting "objects" broadly to include ecosystems. President Obama notably expanded the Act's use, establishing 29 new national monuments. However, this expansion faced pushback, with President Trump reducing the size of certain monuments and lifting usage restrictions. President Biden's subsequent actions, such as expanding the Grand Staircase monument and reinstating fishing bans, further illustrate the contentious nature of presidential monument designations.

All these challenges present interesting questions of statutory interpretation, limits on presidential power, the authority of the judiciary to review Presidential action, and the scope and content of both the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine.

Please join Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, for a litigation update on these exciting cases and the future of presidential power under the Antiquities Act.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60149873Thu, 16 May 2024 16:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyCongress passed the Antiquities Act in 1906 to protect Native American archaeological sites from looters and vandalism, empowering the President to designate historic landmarks, structures, or objects of scientific interest as national monuments on...
Over time, modern Presidents have expanded their authority under the Antiquities Act, interpreting "objects" broadly to include ecosystems. President Obama notably expanded the Act's use, establishing 29 new national monuments. However, this expansion faced pushback, with President Trump reducing the size of certain monuments and lifting usage restrictions. President Biden's subsequent actions, such as expanding the Grand Staircase monument and reinstating fishing bans, further illustrate the contentious nature of presidential monument designations.

All these challenges present interesting questions of statutory interpretation, limits on presidential power, the authority of the judiciary to review Presidential action, and the scope and content of both the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine.

Please join Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, for a litigation update on these exciting cases and the future of presidential power under the Antiquities Act.]]>1845cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-arizona-supreme-court-opinion-in-planned-parenthood-v-mayes-hazelrigg--60062892
The Arizona legislature codified numerous abortion-related laws in the ensuing years. One such law, enacted in 2022, adopted a “15-week ban.” Later that same year, SCOTUS issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe and concluded that the federal constitution does not support a right to abortion.

Dobbs thus set a collision course for two Arizona laws: the previously enjoined but still on-the-books criminal law from 1973 and the 2022 15-week ban. On April 9, 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes / Hazelrigg, resolving the question of which law currently governs.

Hon. James D. Smith will join us to break down the majority and dissenting opinions.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60062892Tue, 14 May 2024 16:00:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyThroughout Arizona’s history as a state, the criminal code authorized penalties against any person who performed or procured an abortion for a pregnant woman. In 1971, Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson challenged that law on state and federal...
The Arizona legislature codified numerous abortion-related laws in the ensuing years. One such law, enacted in 2022, adopted a “15-week ban.” Later that same year, SCOTUS issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe and concluded that the federal constitution does not support a right to abortion.

Dobbs thus set a collision course for two Arizona laws: the previously enjoined but still on-the-books criminal law from 1973 and the 2022 15-week ban. On April 9, 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes / Hazelrigg, resolving the question of which law currently governs.

Hon. James D. Smith will join us to break down the majority and dissenting opinions.]]>3415cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ftc-policy-unpacked-achieving-change-at-the-federal-trade-commission--60025743
Former FTC Chairs Tim Muris and Maureen Ohlhausen were joined by Howard Beales, former Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, to compare these efforts with previous Chair-initiated policy shifts at the agency. Professors Muris and Beales also unveiled their extensive research, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, analyzing key differences compared to earlier FTC efforts at promoting change.

This panel discussed: How should a change agent manage the existing career staff? How should relations with Congress and other key stakeholders be managed? How can change best be implemented in the face of a potentially hostile judiciary and other formidable obstacles? What role should institutional norms play in answering these questions?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60025743Wed, 08 May 2024 19:00:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyFTC Chair Khan has sought to implement aggressive and profound changes at the agency from novel approaches on antitrust to groundbreaking rulemakings. But will these efforts have lasting effects? Former FTC Chairs Tim Muris and Maureen Ohlhausen...
Former FTC Chairs Tim Muris and Maureen Ohlhausen were joined by Howard Beales, former Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, to compare these efforts with previous Chair-initiated policy shifts at the agency. Professors Muris and Beales also unveiled their extensive research, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, analyzing key differences compared to earlier FTC efforts at promoting change.

This panel discussed: How should a change agent manage the existing career staff? How should relations with Congress and other key stakeholders be managed? How can change best be implemented in the face of a potentially hostile judiciary and other formidable obstacles? What role should institutional norms play in answering these questions?]]>3817cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/legal-scrutiny-ahead-assessing-the-implications-of-epa-s-final-power-plant-rule--60111550 The rule was among four measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide “regulatory certainty” to the power industry and encourage them to make investments to transition “to a clean energy economy.” The measures include requirements to reduce toxic wastewater pollutants from coal-fired plants and to safely manage coal ash in unlined storage ponds.
Supporters of the new rule argue that it aligns well with the EPA's statutory authority, the current state of electric markets, and available emissions-reduction technologies. However, opponents contend that it is legally flawed and could jeopardize grid reliability. What legal and policy issues does this rule potentially raise? Does it trigger "major questions" issues? Is the agency relying on unproven technology, potentially violating the statutory requirement that emission standards be based on proven systems? Moreover, does the rule infringe on state prerogatives for regulating existing sources? Join us as we delve into these questions and analyze the legal complexities surrounding this new rule.
Featuring:

Kevin Poloncarz, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60111550Tue, 07 May 2024 18:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 25th, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a suite of final rules meant to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants. The rule was among four measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide... The rule was among four measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide “regulatory certainty” to the power industry and encourage them to make investments to transition “to a clean energy economy.” The measures include requirements to reduce toxic wastewater pollutants from coal-fired plants and to safely manage coal ash in unlined storage ponds.
Supporters of the new rule argue that it aligns well with the EPA's statutory authority, the current state of electric markets, and available emissions-reduction technologies. However, opponents contend that it is legally flawed and could jeopardize grid reliability. What legal and policy issues does this rule potentially raise? Does it trigger "major questions" issues? Is the agency relying on unproven technology, potentially violating the statutory requirement that emission standards be based on proven systems? Moreover, does the rule infringe on state prerogatives for regulating existing sources? Join us as we delve into these questions and analyze the legal complexities surrounding this new rule.
Featuring:

Kevin Poloncarz, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC
]]>3652cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ftc-s-sweeping-non-compete-ban-summary-states-views-and-litigation-challenges--60060321https://api.spreaker.com/episode/60060321Wed, 01 May 2024 16:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 23, 2024, the FTC voted 3-2 to adopt a final rule banning the use of non-compete agreements nationwide, impacting 30 million workers by the FTC’s own estimates. This near categorical ban on the non-compete agreements is a contrast from a...3651cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-starbucks-corp-v-mckinney--59784703 The question before the Supreme Court, however, is not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the NLRA, but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the NLRB needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use?
Join us as we break down and analyze this interesting case and the Oral Argument in the days following the argument before the Court.
Featuring:

Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59784703Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyStarbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of Labor and Administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The employees received... The question before the Supreme Court, however, is not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the NLRA, but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the NLRB needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use?
Join us as we break down and analyze this interesting case and the Oral Argument in the days following the argument before the Court.
Featuring:

Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
]]>3067administrative law & regulatio,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/standing-and-section-2-does-section-2-of-the-voting-rights-act-provide-a-private-right-of-action--59781550 Featuring:

J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation
Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General, The State of Arkansas
Jeffrey Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School & Senior Fellow, New York Census and Redistricting Institute
(Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59781550Fri, 26 Apr 2024 16:00:51 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2021, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, private litigants sued to challenge the Arkansas state House redistricting map as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting the vote of racial... Featuring:

J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation
Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General, The State of Arkansas
Jeffrey Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School & Senior Fellow, New York Census and Redistricting Institute
(Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney
]]>3545free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/nuziard-v-mbda-what-is-the-future-of-equal-protection-litigation--59753924https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59753924Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas entered a declaratory judgment and nationwide injunction against the Minority Business Development Agency, preventing the agency from extending a...3258affirmative actioncleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/deja-vu-all-over-again-the-return-of-network-neutrality--59731350
This panel discussed the legal future on appeal of this most recent iteration in what appears to be an unending partisan regulatory saga—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s changing views on administrative review. The panel also investigated whether this over two decade old policy dispute is fighting yesterday’s war as many believe that there have been few competitive abuses by ISPs during the last two decades—and arguably competitive abuses by dominant firms has moved elsewhere in the web.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59731350Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:00:33 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2002, under Chairman Michael Powell, the FCC passed the Cable Modem Order which classified cable modem internet service providers (ISPs) as not subject to common carrier non-discrimination requirements. The order’s critics said the FCC had created...
This panel discussed the legal future on appeal of this most recent iteration in what appears to be an unending partisan regulatory saga—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s changing views on administrative review. The panel also investigated whether this over two decade old policy dispute is fighting yesterday’s war as many believe that there have been few competitive abuses by ISPs during the last two decades—and arguably competitive abuses by dominant firms has moved elsewhere in the web.]]>3627cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/discrimination-by-proxy-arlington-heights-cases-in-the-post-students-for-fair-admissions-era--59731293
This panel addressed: is proxy discrimination unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment? If yes, what is the right legal test -- Arlington Heights or something else? What challenged policies, if any, are prohibited proxy discrimination?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59731293Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the consolidated Students for Fair Admissions cases, the Supreme Court held unlawful the use of race in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Many colleges and universities have nonetheless indicated...
This panel addressed: is proxy discrimination unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment? If yes, what is the right legal test -- Arlington Heights or something else? What challenged policies, if any, are prohibited proxy discrimination?]]>4008cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-ream-v-u-s-department-of-treasury-is-home-distilling-commerce--59666602 The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, early in 2024, and is currently making its way through the litigation process.
Join us for a litigation update on Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury featuring Robert Alt, lead attorney at The Buckeye Institute representing Mr. Ream.
Featuring:

Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute
(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59666602Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Ream, an engineer and owner of Trek Brewing Company which creates craft beers in Newark, Ohio, is suing the U.S. Department of Treasury over the regulations that prohibit distilling spirits and hard alcohols at home. Mr. Ream asserts that he... The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, early in 2024, and is currently making its way through the litigation process.
Join us for a litigation update on Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury featuring Robert Alt, lead attorney at The Buckeye Institute representing Mr. Ream.
Featuring:

Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute
(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP
]]>2911federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cooperation-credit-privileges-and-possible-landmines-for-attorneys-and-clients-implications-of-us-v-coburn--59666581 Featuring:

Hon. Don Cochran, Professor of Law, Belmont University College of Law
Hon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP
Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
(Moderator) Hon. David C. Joseph, United States District Court Judge, Western District of Louisiana
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59666581Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn February 2022, a District of New Jersey court in United States v. Coburn compelled a private company to produce internal investigation materials to two of its former executives, who had been indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")... Featuring:

Hon. Don Cochran, Professor of Law, Belmont University College of Law
Hon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP
Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
(Moderator) Hon. David C. Joseph, United States District Court Judge, Western District of Louisiana
]]>3504criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson--59697249City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson questions if prohibiting sleeping/camping on public property under the Grants Pass Municipal Code breaches the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." These provisions typically carry civil penalties but can escalate to criminal penalties.Initially filed in 2018, this case draws parallels to Martin v. City of Boise, where the Ninth Circuit ruled that criminalizing such activities breached the Eighth Amendment. The Grants Pass case raises a critical question: do civil penalties for similar actions also infringe on constitutional protections?

Following the Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision favoring the plaintiffs, led by Gloria Johnson, the city appealed, leading to a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Monday, April 22. This case sits at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property Rights, addressing fundamental questions about local governance, public health, and individual freedoms.

Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went the same day.

Featuring: 

• Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59697249Mon, 22 Apr 2024 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyCity of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson questions if prohibiting sleeping/camping on public property under the Grants Pass Municipal Code breaches the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." These provisions typically carry civil...City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson questions if prohibiting sleeping/camping on public property under the Grants Pass Municipal Code breaches the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." These provisions typically carry civil penalties but can escalate to criminal penalties.Initially filed in 2018, this case draws parallels to Martin v. City of Boise, where the Ninth Circuit ruled that criminalizing such activities breached the Eighth Amendment. The Grants Pass case raises a critical question: do civil penalties for similar actions also infringe on constitutional protections?

Following the Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision favoring the plaintiffs, led by Gloria Johnson, the city appealed, leading to a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Monday, April 22. This case sits at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property Rights, addressing fundamental questions about local governance, public health, and individual freedoms.

Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went the same day.

Featuring: 

• Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute

]]>3305cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jurisdiction-stripping-fact-fiction-flowing-through-the-mountain-valley-pipeline-case--59616964
The case-specific impact of this legislation prompted much public concern and Supreme Court review. Petitioners unsuccessfully argued that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by intervening to effect a specific outcome in a specific case Respondents prevailed on the counterargument that Congress merely made new underlying law without directing any decision of an Article III court. In this panel, academic commentators and amici from the case discussed the careful distinctions between amendments to substantive law and case-specific jurisdiction stripping, sharing insights on the separation-of-powers questions both behaviors raise.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59616964Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyGenerally, when Congress strips courts of jurisdiction, it does so by implementing broad, forward-looking, statutory bars that insulate agency decisions or foreclose appeal. In response to the protracted litigation surrounding construction and...
The case-specific impact of this legislation prompted much public concern and Supreme Court review. Petitioners unsuccessfully argued that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by intervening to effect a specific outcome in a specific case Respondents prevailed on the counterargument that Congress merely made new underlying law without directing any decision of an Article III court. In this panel, academic commentators and amici from the case discussed the careful distinctions between amendments to substantive law and case-specific jurisdiction stripping, sharing insights on the separation-of-powers questions both behaviors raise.]]>3500cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/discussing-clarke-v-cftc-the-case-of-predictit-the-cftc-s-no-action-letter--59615940 However, in August 2022, the CFTC withdrew the letter and issued notice to PredictIt to cease operations within 6 months, which led to suit being filed by supporters of PredictIt. Questions included whether the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, whether the letter constituted "final action" on the part of the agency, and whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
Join us as a panel of experts discuss this interesting case.
Featuring:

Michael Edney, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Hon. David Mason, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Aristotle International
Connor Raso, Deputy General Counsel, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(Moderator) Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59615940Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn July of 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in Clarke v. CFTC, and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The case is one concerning the CFTC's... However, in August 2022, the CFTC withdrew the letter and issued notice to PredictIt to cease operations within 6 months, which led to suit being filed by supporters of PredictIt. Questions included whether the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, whether the letter constituted "final action" on the part of the agency, and whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
Join us as a panel of experts discuss this interesting case.
Featuring:

Michael Edney, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Hon. David Mason, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Aristotle International
Connor Raso, Deputy General Counsel, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(Moderator) Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
]]>3632administrative law & regulatio,financial services & e-commerccleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson--59615863 The case was originally filed in 2018 by a group of individuals including Gloria Johnson affected by the Grants Pass Municipal Codes, and in 2022 the Ninth Circuit decided in favor of the group. The city appealed and it is set to be heard at the Supreme Court on Monday, April 22.
Supporters of the city of Grants Pass have argued that these codes and those like them are important for addressing issues of local governance and public health and safety. They contend having courts meddle in issues that pertain to local matters is dangerous and preempts local law enforcement and governments from serving their communities. Detractors claim that the codes endanger those who are involuntarily homeless and impose disproportionate punishment for a non-criminal status.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps preview on this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights.
Featuring:

Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Property Rights, Pacific Legal Foundation
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59615863Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyCity of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson concerns whether the sections of the Grants Pass Municipal Code which prohibit sleeping/camping on public property like parks and streets constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth... The case was originally filed in 2018 by a group of individuals including Gloria Johnson affected by the Grants Pass Municipal Codes, and in 2022 the Ninth Circuit decided in favor of the group. The city appealed and it is set to be heard at the Supreme Court on Monday, April 22.
Supporters of the city of Grants Pass have argued that these codes and those like them are important for addressing issues of local governance and public health and safety. They contend having courts meddle in issues that pertain to local matters is dangerous and preempts local law enforcement and governments from serving their communities. Detractors claim that the codes endanger those who are involuntarily homeless and impose disproportionate punishment for a non-criminal status.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps preview on this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights.
Featuring:

Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Property Rights, Pacific Legal Foundation
]]>3529criminal law & procedure,environmental law & property r,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-april-2024--59504968
Snyder v. United States (April 15) - Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (April 15) - Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.
Fischer v. United States (April 16) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.
Thornell v. Jones (April 17) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (April 22) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.
Smith v. Spizzirri (April 22) - Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.
Department of State v. Munoz (April 23) - (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (April 23) - Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard.
Moyle v. United States (April 24) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.
Trump v. United States (April 24) - Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Featuring:

Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice
G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
Harry Graver, Associate, Jones Day
Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Partner, McGuireWoods
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59504968Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Snyder v. United States (April 15) - Whether section 18 U.S.C. §...
Snyder v. United States (April 15) - Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (April 15) - Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.
Fischer v. United States (April 16) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.
Thornell v. Jones (April 17) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (April 22) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.
Smith v. Spizzirri (April 22) - Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.
Department of State v. Munoz (April 23) - (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (April 23) - Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard.
Moyle v. United States (April 24) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.
Trump v. United States (April 24) - Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Featuring:

Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice
G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
Harry Graver, Associate, Jones Day
Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S....]]>5727cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-pulsifer-v-united-states--59195804 Featuring:

Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59195804Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Pulsifer v. United States, the Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the... Featuring:

Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
]]>2783criminal law & procedure,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/303-creative-masterpiece-cakeshop-and-the-fate-of-free-exercise-for-wedding-vendors--59195840 Wedding-vendor litigation continues to percolate throughout the country and raises important questions for First Amendment jurisprudence, including whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, whether the free exercise clause extends protection to wedding vendors in a similar way to the free speech clause, and whether the so-called “hybrid rights doctrine” is a viable theory for analyzing religious claims to exemptions. Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars and practitioners in this space.
Featuring:

Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of Law
Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel at Senate Judiciary Committee
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59195840Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has grown, as wedding vendors have refused to serve same-sex weddings pursuant to their consciences. On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its... Wedding-vendor litigation continues to percolate throughout the country and raises important questions for First Amendment jurisprudence, including whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, whether the free exercise clause extends protection to wedding vendors in a similar way to the free speech clause, and whether the so-called “hybrid rights doctrine” is a viable theory for analyzing religious claims to exemptions. Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars and practitioners in this space.
Featuring:

Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of Law
Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel at Senate Judiciary Committee
]]>3661religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-gonzalez-v-trevino--59185662
After a day in jail, local media picked up the story and the local prosecutor dropped the charges. Petitioner is represented by the Institute for Justice and she filed a 2020 lawsuit against the city officials. The city filed a motion to dismiss claiming qualified immunity, which the district court denied. An appeal followed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the district court over a dissent from Judge Oldham. The Supreme Court granted certiorari this past fall.

On March 20, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Trevino. This was a discussion with Anya Bidwell, Attorney at the Institute for Justice, as she broke down the case and its developments after oral argument.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59185662Wed, 20 Mar 2024 19:00:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Gonzalez v. Trevino, Petitioner Sylvia Gonzalez is a 72 year-old city councilwoman from Castle Hills, Texas. Ms. Gonzalez believed that the city's mayor and city manager were ignoring her constituents and her own frustrations with the city. The...
After a day in jail, local media picked up the story and the local prosecutor dropped the charges. Petitioner is represented by the Institute for Justice and she filed a 2020 lawsuit against the city officials. The city filed a motion to dismiss claiming qualified immunity, which the district court denied. An appeal followed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the district court over a dissent from Judge Oldham. The Supreme Court granted certiorari this past fall.

On March 20, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Trevino. This was a discussion with Anya Bidwell, Attorney at the Institute for Justice, as she broke down the case and its developments after oral argument.]]>1087cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-march-2024--59100628
Murthy v. Missouri (March 18) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the injunction of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana restricting federal officials’ and employees’ speech concerning content moderation on social media platforms.
NRA v. Vullo (March 18) - Whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy.
Diaz v. United States (March 19) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking — where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs — Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (March 19) - Bankruptcy law - This case addresses whether an insurer with responsibility for a bankruptcy claim qualifies as a "party in interest" able to object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. It touches on the rights and roles of insurance companies within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
Gonzalez v. Trevino (March 20) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (March 20) - Environmental Law - This dispute involves the apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande among the states and the role of the federal government in such agreements. It represents the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle over water rights and usage.
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (March 25) - Federal Indian Law, Medical Law - The question is whether Native American tribes that manage their own healthcare programs are entitled to receive funds from the Indian Health Service to cover costs associated with services that are covered by insurance. This case examines the intersection of tribal sovereignty, healthcare, and federal funding obligations.
Harrow v. Department of Defense (March 25) - Ad Law - It questions whether the 60-day deadline for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional, impacting the rights of federal employees in the review process.
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine (March 26) - Ad Law - It centers on the FDA’s approval process and actions to increase access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. The case challenges the FDA's decisions on drug safety and accessibility, testing the limits of agency authority and judicial review.
Erlinger v. United States (March 27) - Criminal Law - The question is whether, for the purposes of imposing an enhanced sentence under the ACCA, it should be a jury or a judge who decides if the defendant’s previous convictions occurred on different occasions.
Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service (March 27) - Tax Law - The case examines whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy, taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock, should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares.

Featuring:

Robert Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIRE
Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel
Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
Moderator: Michael Francisco, Partner, McGuireWoods
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59100628Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:00:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Murthy v. Missouri (March 18) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the...
Murthy v. Missouri (March 18) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the injunction of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana restricting federal officials’ and employees’ speech concerning content moderation on social media platforms.
NRA v. Vullo (March 18) - Whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy.
Diaz v. United States (March 19) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking — where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs — Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (March 19) - Bankruptcy law - This case addresses whether an insurer with responsibility for a bankruptcy claim qualifies as a "party in interest" able to object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. It touches on the rights and roles of insurance companies within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
Gonzalez v. Trevino (March 20) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (March 20) - Environmental Law - This dispute involves the apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande among the states and the role of the federal government in such agreements. It represents the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle over water rights and usage.
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (March 25) - Federal Indian Law, Medical Law - The question is whether Native American tribes that manage their own healthcare programs are entitled to receive funds from the Indian Health Service to cover costs associated with services that are covered by insurance. This case examines the intersection of tribal sovereignty, healthcare, and federal funding obligations.
Harrow v. Department of Defense (March 25) - Ad Law - It questions whether the 60-day deadline for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional, impacting the rights of federal employees in the review process.
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine (March 26) - Ad Law - It centers on the FDA’s approval process and actions to increase access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. The case challenges the FDA's decisions on drug safety and accessibility, testing the limits of agency authority and judicial review.
Erlinger v. United States (March 27) - Criminal Law - The question is whether, for the purposes of imposing an enhanced sentence under the ACCA, it should be a jury or a judge who decides if the defendant’s previous convictions occurred on different occasions.
Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service (March 27) - Tax Law - The case examines whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy, taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder to facilitate the...]]>4233cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-de-piero-v-pennsylvania-state-university--59185618
Professor De Piero claims the University's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives created a hostile work environment with a race-essentialism focus. Professor De Piero was required to attend professional development meetings to view videos such as “White Teachers Are a Problem”, and was directed to “assure that all students see that white supremacy manifests itself in language and in writing pedagogy.” He took the prescribed course of action and filed a bias report, to no avail.

Professor De Piero has now filed suit against Penn State in federal court, alleging violations of his civil rights under federal and Pennsylvania law. Penn State initially argued that De Piero's disparate treatment claim must be dismissed because he resigned from his job at Penn State, and, thus, did not suffer an adverse employment action. On January 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Penn State’s motion to dismiss the discrimination claim against it by Professor De Piero. The case has now entered the discovery phase.

This was a Litigation Update on De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University with Michael Allen, one of Professor De Piero's attorneys and Partner at Allen Harris Law, and moderator William Trachman, General Counsel at the Mountain States Legal Foundation.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59185618Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessor Zack De Piero was an English professor at the Pennsylvania State University Abington campus before resigning and filing a lawsuit against the University in 2023 alleging that administrators and faculty members discriminated against him...
Professor De Piero claims the University's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives created a hostile work environment with a race-essentialism focus. Professor De Piero was required to attend professional development meetings to view videos such as “White Teachers Are a Problem”, and was directed to “assure that all students see that white supremacy manifests itself in language and in writing pedagogy.” He took the prescribed course of action and filed a bias report, to no avail.

Professor De Piero has now filed suit against Penn State in federal court, alleging violations of his civil rights under federal and Pennsylvania law. Penn State initially argued that De Piero's disparate treatment claim must be dismissed because he resigned from his job at Penn State, and, thus, did not suffer an adverse employment action. On January 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Penn State’s motion to dismiss the discrimination claim against it by Professor De Piero. The case has now entered the discovery phase.

This was a Litigation Update on De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University with Michael Allen, one of Professor De Piero's attorneys and Partner at Allen Harris Law, and moderator William Trachman, General Counsel at the Mountain States Legal Foundation.]]>3041cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-gerber-v-ohio-northern-university--59048218
In April 2023, Dr. Scott Gerber was abruptly removed from his law class by school security and brought to the dean's office. Dr. Gerber was then told by Dean Charles H. Rose III that he must resign or face termination proceedings. During his time teaching, he had been a long-standing critic of the University's use of race, sex, and ethnicity factors in hiring and student admissions. He refused to resign and the University soon commenced termination proceedings against him. Dr. Gerber was not told what he was accused of doing, despite his contractual right as a tenured faculty member to be informed with “reasonable particularity” of the accusations against him. Hardin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas issued a temporary restraining order against ONU, requiring them to notify Dr. Gerber of what he was alleged to have done. At the hearing, the University allegedly failed to give Dr. Gerber a fair hearing as they brought forward new accusations and denied Dr. Gerber his contractual right to interview witnesses.

Dr. Gerber, who is represented by the America First Legal Foundation, has now filed suit against Ohio Northern University to restore his reputation, regain his employment, and secure compensation for the actions of the University.

This was a Litigation Update on Gerber v. Ohio Northern University with Ben Flowers, one of Dr. Gerber's attorneys and a Partner at Ashbrook Byrne Kresge, moderated by Dan Morenoff, Executive Director at American Civil Rights Project.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59048218Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:00:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyAcademic freedom and free speech at colleges and universities are at the center of ongoing litigation in Gerber v. Ohio Northern University. In April 2023, Dr. Scott Gerber was abruptly removed from his law class by school security and brought to...
In April 2023, Dr. Scott Gerber was abruptly removed from his law class by school security and brought to the dean's office. Dr. Gerber was then told by Dean Charles H. Rose III that he must resign or face termination proceedings. During his time teaching, he had been a long-standing critic of the University's use of race, sex, and ethnicity factors in hiring and student admissions. He refused to resign and the University soon commenced termination proceedings against him. Dr. Gerber was not told what he was accused of doing, despite his contractual right as a tenured faculty member to be informed with “reasonable particularity” of the accusations against him. Hardin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas issued a temporary restraining order against ONU, requiring them to notify Dr. Gerber of what he was alleged to have done. At the hearing, the University allegedly failed to give Dr. Gerber a fair hearing as they brought forward new accusations and denied Dr. Gerber his contractual right to interview witnesses.

Dr. Gerber, who is represented by the America First Legal Foundation, has now filed suit against Ohio Northern University to restore his reputation, regain his employment, and secure compensation for the actions of the University.

This was a Litigation Update on Gerber v. Ohio Northern University with Ben Flowers, one of Dr. Gerber's attorneys and a Partner at Ashbrook Byrne Kresge, moderated by Dan Morenoff, Executive Director at American Civil Rights Project.]]>2179cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-murthy-v-missouri-nra-v-vullo--59044103 Murthy v. Missouri, originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, concerns whether federal government officials had violated the First Amendment by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms. This content spanned various topics, including the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficacy of masks and vaccines, and the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, among others.
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo raises the question of whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy. This lawsuit, initiated by the NRA in response to what it perceives as targeted actions by Vullo to undermine its financial support structure, argues that these measures amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, effectively punishing the NRA for its protected speech.
Join us for a conversation on the right previewing these cases and the issues at play.
Featuring:

Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Will Duffield, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute
[Moderator] Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59044103Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:30:05 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 18, 2024 the Supreme Court will hear two cases related to alleged “jawboning” -Murthy v. Missouri & NRA v. Vullo. Murthy v. Missouri, originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, concerns whether federal government officials had... Murthy v. Missouri, originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, concerns whether federal government officials had violated the First Amendment by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms. This content spanned various topics, including the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficacy of masks and vaccines, and the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, among others.
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo raises the question of whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy. This lawsuit, initiated by the NRA in response to what it perceives as targeted actions by Vullo to undermine its financial support structure, argues that these measures amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, effectively punishing the NRA for its protected speech.
Join us for a conversation on the right previewing these cases and the issues at play.
Featuring:

Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Will Duffield, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute
[Moderator] Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
]]>3675civil rights,federalism & separation of pow,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-meets-copyright-understanding-new-york-times-v-openai--59035909
To help understand this case Professors Charles Duan from the American University Washington College of Law and Zvi Rosen of the Simmons School of Law at Southern Illinois University was joined by Steven Tepp of Sentinel Worldwide, who is also a Lecturer at the George Washington University School of Law and formerly of the U.S. Copyright Office. John Moran of Holland & Knight moderated the panel and provided additional perspective.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59035909Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:00:22 +0000The Federalist SocietyArtificial intelligence is the most important technological tool being developed today, but the use of preexisting copyrighted works to train these AI systems is deeply controversial. At the end of 2023 the New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft,...
To help understand this case Professors Charles Duan from the American University Washington College of Law and Zvi Rosen of the Simmons School of Law at Southern Illinois University was joined by Steven Tepp of Sentinel Worldwide, who is also a Lecturer at the George Washington University School of Law and formerly of the U.S. Copyright Office. John Moran of Holland & Knight moderated the panel and provided additional perspective.]]>3892intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-speech-first-inc-v-sands--59016708 Join us for a litigation update on this important case in light of those developments.
Featuring:

Abigail Smith, Amicus Attorney, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
(Moderator) Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59016708Thu, 07 Mar 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySpeech First, Inc. v. Sands concerns a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) policy that created a bias response team and protocol where students could report bias incidents. Under this policy, reported incidents would be... Join us for a litigation update on this important case in light of those developments.
Featuring:

Abigail Smith, Amicus Attorney, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
(Moderator) Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
]]>3649free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-better-money-gold-fiat-or-bitcoin--58950153 Please join us as Professor Lawrence White joins discussants Alexandra Gaiser and Bert Ely, and moderator Alex Pollock to discuss Better Money.
Featuring:

Prof. Lawrence H. White, George Mason University
Alexandra Gaiser, General Counsel, Strive
Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58950153Wed, 06 Mar 2024 19:50:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Better Money: Gold, Fiat, Or Bitcoin?, monetary expert Lawrence H. White delves into the timely debate surrounding alternative currencies amidst the backdrop of constant inflation in the fiat currency world. Better Money explains and analyzes gold,... Please join us as Professor Lawrence White joins discussants Alexandra Gaiser and Bert Ely, and moderator Alex Pollock to discuss Better Money.
Featuring:

Prof. Lawrence H. White, George Mason University
Alexandra Gaiser, General Counsel, Strive
Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute

]]>3552cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-trump-v-anderson--58933596 Legal questions involved in the case include whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing" or requires an additional act of Congress, whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection, and if so whether Donald Trump participated in that insurrection, and whether the President is an "officer of the United States" as meant by Section 3.
On March 4, 2024 the Court issued a 9-0 decision overturning the Colorado Supreme Court’s December ruling, holding that President Trump is not precluded from appearing on Colorado’s presidential primary ballot.
Featuring:

Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58933596Tue, 05 Mar 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court heard Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson. The Court considered whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot. Legal... Legal questions involved in the case include whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing" or requires an additional act of Congress, whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection, and if so whether Donald Trump participated in that insurrection, and whether the President is an "officer of the United States" as meant by Section 3.
On March 4, 2024 the Court issued a 9-0 decision overturning the Colorado Supreme Court’s December ruling, holding that President Trump is not precluded from appearing on Colorado’s presidential primary ballot.
Featuring:

Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
]]>1887cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-ohio-v-environmental-protection-agency--58933556 Please join our panel of experts as they break down the case and its developments after oral argument.
Featuring:

Megan Herzog, Partner, Donahue & Goldberg LLP
Matt Kuhn, Solicitor General, Kentucky
Viktoria Seale, Regulatory Affairs Director, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Matthew Z. Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58933556Tue, 05 Mar 2024 15:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. The following questions are presented – (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission... Please join our panel of experts as they break down the case and its developments after oral argument.
Featuring:

Megan Herzog, Partner, Donahue & Goldberg LLP
Matt Kuhn, Solicitor General, Kentucky
Viktoria Seale, Regulatory Affairs Director, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Matthew Z. Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth
]]>3689cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-garland-v-cargill--58936572 Join us the next day as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58936572Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:30:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyGarland v. Cargill concerns whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and Administrative Law, the case raises questions concerning the role of... Join us the next day as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
]]>3757administrative law & regulatio,criminal law & procedure,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/nist-s-proposed-framework-for-a-new-approach-to-bayh-dole-march-in-what-you-need-to-know--59017969
This panel seeks to answer what the new framework is while also debating the pros and cons. This FedSoc Forum aims for participants to have a better understanding of this proposed policy change, be able to assess the impact should it be enacted, and be motivated to actively engage in the ongoing debate.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/59017969Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeks comments on the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, which sets out the factors that an agency may consider when deciding whether to...
This panel seeks to answer what the new framework is while also debating the pros and cons. This FedSoc Forum aims for participants to have a better understanding of this proposed policy change, be able to assess the impact should it be enacted, and be motivated to actively engage in the ongoing debate.]]>3656cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-mcelrath-v-georgia--58934236 McElrath concerned the case of Damian McElrath, who in 2017 was tried for malice murder, aggravated assault, and felony murder Under Georgia Law, in a case where a defendant is claiming insanity at the time of the crime, the jury can render one of four possible verdicts: Guilty, Guilty but Mentally Ill, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, or Not Guilty. The jury rendered a split verdict, finding McElrath not guilty by reason of insanity on the malice murder charge and guilty but mentally ill on the felony murder and aggravated assault charges. McElrath challenged his guilty but mentally ill conviction as repugnant to his acquittals. The Georgia Supreme Court, instead of overturning his conviction, vacated both the conviction and the acquittal and remanded the case for a retrial. McElrath then filed a plea in bar asserting that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited the State from subjecting him to a second trial on the malice murder charge. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November of 2023.
Please join us for a post-decision Courthouse steps program where we will break down and analyze this recent decision concerning double jeopardy and criminal law.
Featuring:

Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58934236Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 21, the Supreme Court unanimously decided McElrath v. Georgia, holding that a jury’s verdict that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity of malice murder constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes... McElrath concerned the case of Damian McElrath, who in 2017 was tried for malice murder, aggravated assault, and felony murder Under Georgia Law, in a case where a defendant is claiming insanity at the time of the crime, the jury can render one of four possible verdicts: Guilty, Guilty but Mentally Ill, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, or Not Guilty. The jury rendered a split verdict, finding McElrath not guilty by reason of insanity on the malice murder charge and guilty but mentally ill on the felony murder and aggravated assault charges. McElrath challenged his guilty but mentally ill conviction as repugnant to his acquittals. The Georgia Supreme Court, instead of overturning his conviction, vacated both the conviction and the acquittal and remanded the case for a retrial. McElrath then filed a plea in bar asserting that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited the State from subjecting him to a second trial on the malice murder charge. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November of 2023.
Please join us for a post-decision Courthouse steps program where we will break down and analyze this recent decision concerning double jeopardy and criminal law.
Featuring:

Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
]]>1324criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-first-step-act-is-it-working-and-what-s-next--58934275 Featuring:

Stephanie Kennedy, Policy Director, Council on Criminal Justice
Rafael A. Mangual, Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy Contributing Editor, City Journal, The Manhattan Institute
(Moderator) Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58934275Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:00:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe First Step Act of 2018, passed as the result of bi-partisan efforts during the Trump administration, aimed to reduce the population of those in federal prison and to limit some federal prison sentences. Over the years some have contended the act... Featuring:

Stephanie Kennedy, Policy Director, Council on Criminal Justice
Rafael A. Mangual, Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy Contributing Editor, City Journal, The Manhattan Institute
(Moderator) Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
]]>3733criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-netchoice-cases--58934322 In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenges Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. The lower district court found that the law did not stand up to strict scrutiny. Additionally, the court found that this law didn’t serve a legitimate state interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this ruling.
In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenges the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. The lower district court found the sections unconstitutional and placed an injunction on the two sections. The Fifth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that HB 20 doesn’t regulate the speech of the platforms, but instead protects the speech of users and regulates the platform's conduct.
Both cases are set to be heard at the Supreme Court on February 26, 2024. Join us as we break down and analyze how Oral argument went the same day.
Featuring:

Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58934322Mon, 26 Feb 2024 20:00:55 +0000The Federalist SocietyTwo cases involving NetChoice, a company that represents social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok will be heard at the Supreme Court this term. Both cases concern issues of free speech and social media platforms. In Moody v.... In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenges Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. The lower district court found that the law did not stand up to strict scrutiny. Additionally, the court found that this law didn’t serve a legitimate state interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this ruling.
In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenges the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. The lower district court found the sections unconstitutional and placed an injunction on the two sections. The Fifth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that HB 20 doesn’t regulate the speech of the platforms, but instead protects the speech of users and regulates the platform's conduct.
Both cases are set to be heard at the Supreme Court on February 26, 2024. Join us as we break down and analyze how Oral argument went the same day.
Featuring:

Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
]]>2801free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/proposed-changes-to-the-hsr-merger-filing-process-in-house-counsel-view--58789957 Featuring:
Kirstie Nicholson, Global Competition Counsel, BHP
Gil Ohana, former Senior Director, Antitrust & Competition, Cisco
Roman Reuter, Senior Counsel, International Competition Affairs, Deutsche Telekom AG
Moderator: Chris Wilson, Partner, Gibson Dunn
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58789957Thu, 22 Feb 2024 20:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. antitrust agencies have recently proposed changes to the HSR merger filing process, broadening the scope of review beyond consumer and competitive effects to workers and other non-competition factors. Merging parties would also be required to... Featuring:
Kirstie Nicholson, Global Competition Counsel, BHP
Gil Ohana, former Senior Director, Antitrust & Competition, Cisco
Roman Reuter, Senior Counsel, International Competition Affairs, Deutsche Telekom AG
Moderator: Chris Wilson, Partner, Gibson Dunn
]]>2986cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/state-merger-enforcement-trends-outlook--58865732https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58865732Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyState Attorneys General have long played a role in merger enforcement, challenging anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions either independently or by partnering with other states and federal enforcers. Today, states are showing a heightened interest...3476cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-corner-post-inc-v-board-of-governors-of-the-federal-reserve-system--58865826
Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment.

Please join us as we discuss the case and how oral argument went before the Court.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58865826Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:00:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C....
Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment.

Please join us as we discuss the case and how oral argument went before the Court.]]>5301cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-bissonnette-v-lepage-bakeries-park-st-llc--58697019
Featuring:

• Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58697019Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:30:02 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street LLC. The court will consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption for the employment contracts of “workers engaged in interstate...
Featuring:

• Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law

]]>1497cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-2024--58751427
Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (February 20) - Does the six-year statute of limitations to challenge an action by a federal agency begin to run when the agency issues the rule or when the plaintiff is actually injured?
Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street, LLC (February 20) - Labor & Employment; Whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption for the employment contracts of “workers engaged in interstate commerce” applies to any worker who is “actively engaged” in the interstate transportation of goods, or whether the worker’s employer must also be in the “transportation industry.”
Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (February 21) - Intellectual Property; Whether copyright plaintiffs can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before they filed their lawsuit.
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (February 21) - Environmental Law; (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (February 26) - First Amendment; (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (February 26) - First Amendment; Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.
McIntosh v. United States (February 27) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. (February 27) - Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.
Garland v. Cargill (February 28) - Second Amendment; Whether a “bump stock” – an attachment that transforms a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic, assault-style weapon – is a “machinegun,” which is generally prohibited under federal law.
Coinbase v. Suski (February 28) - When an arbitration agreement tasks the arbitrator with deciding whether a dispute should be arbitrated, should courts or the arbitrator decide whether the agreement is narrowed by a later contract that does not address arbitration?

Featuring:

Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Scott Dixler, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLP
Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Moderator: Alexandra Gaiser, General Counsel, Strive
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58751427Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (February...
Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (February 20) - Does the six-year statute of limitations to challenge an action by a federal agency begin to run when the agency issues the rule or when the plaintiff is actually injured?
Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street, LLC (February 20) - Labor & Employment; Whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption for the employment contracts of “workers engaged in interstate commerce” applies to any worker who is “actively engaged” in the interstate transportation of goods, or whether the worker’s employer must also be in the “transportation industry.”
Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (February 21) - Intellectual Property; Whether copyright plaintiffs can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before they filed their lawsuit.
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (February 21) - Environmental Law; (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (February 26) - First Amendment; (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (February 26) - First Amendment; Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.
McIntosh v. United States (February 27) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. (February 27) - Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.
Garland v. Cargill (February 28) - Second Amendment; Whether a “bump stock” – an attachment that transforms a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic, assault-style weapon – is a “machinegun,” which is generally prohibited under federal law.
Coinbase v. Suski (February 28) - When an arbitration agreement tasks the arbitrator with deciding whether a dispute should be arbitrated, should courts or the arbitrator decide whether the agreement is narrowed by a later contract that does not address arbitration?

Featuring:

Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Scott Dixler, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLP
Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Moderator: Alexandra Gaiser, General Counsel, Strive
]]>4630cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/justice-suspended-an-update-in-the-case-of-judge-pauline-newman--58686407
This program will provide an update on Judge Newman’s case and discuss issues related to this most-unusual set of circumstances. This program coincides with panelist David Lat’s recent interview with Judge Newman, available here, which allows viewers to hear Judge Newman in her own words. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability released an opinion in the case, available here.

Check out this recording for a discussion of Judge Newman’s case, the state of judicial conduct, and more.

Featuring:

• David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction
• Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
• Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58686407Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:30:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyAt the age of 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation’s oldest federal judge. In 1984, Judge Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In April of last year, reports surfaced that Federal...
This program will provide an update on Judge Newman’s case and discuss issues related to this most-unusual set of circumstances. This program coincides with panelist David Lat’s recent interview with Judge Newman, available here, which allows viewers to hear Judge Newman in her own words. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability released an opinion in the case, available here.

Check out this recording for a discussion of Judge Newman’s case, the state of judicial conduct, and more.

Featuring:

• David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction
• Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
• Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

]]>3622cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/henry-kissinger-and-international-law--58674519
Featuring:

• Prof. Jeremi Suri, Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs; Professor of Public Affairs and History, University of Texas
• Prof. Thomas Schwartz, Distinguished Professor of History, Professor of Political Science and European Studies, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Vanderbilt University
• Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58674519Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:30:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 29, 2023, Henry Kissinger died at the age of 100. The former US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor had a long and distinguished career as a scholar and statesman, and his legacy is both prolific and controversial. While many...
Featuring:

• Prof. Jeremi Suri, Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs; Professor of Public Affairs and History, University of Texas
• Prof. Thomas Schwartz, Distinguished Professor of History, Professor of Political Science and European Studies, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Vanderbilt University
• Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution

]]>3539cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-congress--58662038Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!
Featuring:

Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of Law
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Dr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58662038Mon, 12 Feb 2024 19:43:40 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed...Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!
Featuring:

Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of Law
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Dr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>3651administrative law & regulatio,article i initiative,federalismcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/antitrust-agencies-scrutiny-of-labor--58685996https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58685996Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:00:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division have put labor issues at the center of antitrust enforcement and policy making. The agencies are closely examining companies’ hiring, recruitment, non-compete, and employee...3725cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-trump-v-anderson--58627283 Legal questions involved in the case include whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing" or requires an additional act of Congress, whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection, and if so whether Donald Trump participated in that insurrection, and whether the President is an "officer of the United States" as meant by Section 3.
Join us as a panel of experts, including Prof. Kurt Lash, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, and Prof. Ilya Somin, who also submitted an amicus brief, preview this case the day before the oral argument, discussing the case and the questions implicated by it.
Featuring:

Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
(Moderator) Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58627283Wed, 07 Feb 2024 19:30:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson. The Court will consider whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot. Legal... Legal questions involved in the case include whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing" or requires an additional act of Congress, whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection, and if so whether Donald Trump participated in that insurrection, and whether the President is an "officer of the United States" as meant by Section 3.
Join us as a panel of experts, including Prof. Kurt Lash, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, and Prof. Ilya Somin, who also submitted an amicus brief, preview this case the day before the oral argument, discussing the case and the questions implicated by it.
Featuring:

Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
(Moderator) Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
]]>3367federal courts,federalism & separation of pow,free speech & election law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/loper-and-labor-law-implications-of-a-possible-decrease-in-deference-on-new-rulemaking--58601897 This program will discuss the potential effect of the decision on new rulemaking, specifically in labor law. The discussion will cover how deference has been applied in the past and how Loper and Relentless may impact recent rulemaking. The program will focus on a series of recent rulemaking, including the Section 541 Exemption Revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the NLRB’s modified Independent Contractor Standard, the NLRB Joint Employer rule, and the FTC proposal to ban Non Compete Clauses.
Please join us as an expert panel addresses recent rulemaking and more in pursuit of understanding the potential fallout after Loper and Relentless.
To learn more about Loper's potential impact on Labor Law, check out Alex MacDonald's article on the subject here.
Featuring:

Alexander Thomas MacDonald, Shareholder Littler
Hon. Tammy Dee McCutchen, Former Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58601897Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases will determine whether Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 case in which the Court held that courts should... This program will discuss the potential effect of the decision on new rulemaking, specifically in labor law. The discussion will cover how deference has been applied in the past and how Loper and Relentless may impact recent rulemaking. The program will focus on a series of recent rulemaking, including the Section 541 Exemption Revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the NLRB’s modified Independent Contractor Standard, the NLRB Joint Employer rule, and the FTC proposal to ban Non Compete Clauses.
Please join us as an expert panel addresses recent rulemaking and more in pursuit of understanding the potential fallout after Loper and Relentless.
To learn more about Loper's potential impact on Labor Law, check out Alex MacDonald's article on the subject here.
Featuring:

Alexander Thomas MacDonald, Shareholder Littler
Hon. Tammy Dee McCutchen, Former Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor

]]>3581cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-chen-et-al-v-hillsdale-college-buettner-hartsoe-v-baltimore-lutheran--58600801 Two recent cases however (Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association & Chen et al. g. Hillsdale College) have presented a novel theory that would classify an institution's tax-exempt status as federal financial assistance, leaving even those private schools who have sought to remain independent from governmental regulation subject to Title IX. This would affect schools at all levels, as Buettner-Hartsoe concerns a secondary school serving grades 6-12 and Chen et al. is challenging Hillsdale College's actions.
Join us for a litigation update on these two cases featuring Mary Margaret Beecher of Napa Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief in Buettner-Hartsoe.
Featuring:

Mary Margaret Beecher, Vice President and Executive Director, Napa Legal Institute
(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58600801Thu, 01 Feb 2024 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyTitle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 applies to educational institutions at all levels that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. As such, it has traditionally not applied to private schools that do not accept... Two recent cases however (Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association & Chen et al. g. Hillsdale College) have presented a novel theory that would classify an institution's tax-exempt status as federal financial assistance, leaving even those private schools who have sought to remain independent from governmental regulation subject to Title IX. This would affect schools at all levels, as Buettner-Hartsoe concerns a secondary school serving grades 6-12 and Chen et al. is challenging Hillsdale College's actions.
Join us for a litigation update on these two cases featuring Mary Margaret Beecher of Napa Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief in Buettner-Hartsoe.
Featuring:

Mary Margaret Beecher, Vice President and Executive Director, Napa Legal Institute
(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP
]]>2883education policy,litigation,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-loper-bright-relentless--58408441 Both cases concern attempts of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to promulgate rules requiring industry-funded monitoring of Atlantic herring fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Regulated fisheries contended that the MSA does not allow the NMFS to create a program requiring the industry to pay for monitoring services. The NMFS does not contend there is an explicit grant of this power, but argues its interpretation of the statute is appropriate and due deference under the precedent of Chevron.
Oral argument is set to be heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024. Join us for a courthouse steps oral argument webinar featuring John Vecchione, who argued the Relentless case in the lower court, where we will discuss and break down how oral argument went in both cases before the court.
Featuring:

John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58408441Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:00:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will consider whether Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 case in which the Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of... Both cases concern attempts of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to promulgate rules requiring industry-funded monitoring of Atlantic herring fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Regulated fisheries contended that the MSA does not allow the NMFS to create a program requiring the industry to pay for monitoring services. The NMFS does not contend there is an explicit grant of this power, but argues its interpretation of the statute is appropriate and due deference under the precedent of Chevron.
Oral argument is set to be heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024. Join us for a courthouse steps oral argument webinar featuring John Vecchione, who argued the Relentless case in the lower court, where we will discuss and break down how oral argument went in both cases before the court.
Featuring:

John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

]]>3656administrative law & regulatio,federalism,labor & employment law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sheetz-v-county-of-el-dorado-ca--58349953 Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

David P. Lanferman, Partner, Rutan & Tucker LLP
Nancie G. Marzulla, Partner, Marzullla Law

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58349953Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA. This case is a property-rights challenge by a California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for... Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

David P. Lanferman, Partner, Rutan & Tucker LLP
Nancie G. Marzulla, Partner, Marzullla Law

]]>3146cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-okplac-inc-v-statewide-virtual-charter-school-board--58409262 Subsequently, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, filed a separate lawsuit requesting original jurisdiction in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, taking the side of the ACLU and its allies, and seeking to ban St. Isidore from operating a faith-based virtual charter school. Currently, Oklahoma families may choose to send their children, for free, to local public schools, local charter schools run by private organizations, or virtual charter schools run by private organizations. Those seeking to block St. Isidore’s operation take the position that, while Oklahoma may allow secular private organizations to operate charter schools, it must deny the same opportunity to all faith-based organizations. The Defendants in the suits argue that Carson v. Makin and other recent precedents applying the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as different Oklahoma state laws, prohibit the state from discriminating against St. Isidore because of its faith-based status and denying families of Oklahoma a faith-based choice among the many secular choices for free education in Oklahoma.
Join us for a litigation update on OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.
Featuring:

Michael McGinley, Partner, Dechert LLP
(Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58409262Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAfter Carson v. Makin (2023) --a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that Maine may not prohibit families from using state-provided voucher funds at private religious schools-- St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School (St. Isidore) applied to become... Subsequently, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, filed a separate lawsuit requesting original jurisdiction in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, taking the side of the ACLU and its allies, and seeking to ban St. Isidore from operating a faith-based virtual charter school. Currently, Oklahoma families may choose to send their children, for free, to local public schools, local charter schools run by private organizations, or virtual charter schools run by private organizations. Those seeking to block St. Isidore’s operation take the position that, while Oklahoma may allow secular private organizations to operate charter schools, it must deny the same opportunity to all faith-based organizations. The Defendants in the suits argue that Carson v. Makin and other recent precedents applying the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as different Oklahoma state laws, prohibit the state from discriminating against St. Isidore because of its faith-based status and denying families of Oklahoma a faith-based choice among the many secular choices for free education in Oklahoma.
Join us for a litigation update on OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.
Featuring:

Michael McGinley, Partner, Dechert LLP
(Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

]]>3509education policy,litigation,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-devillier-v-texas--58418312 The petitioners in this case sued the state after the Texas Department of Transportation elevated an interstate and constructed a barrier to obstruct natural water flow, subsequently flooding and damaging the petitioners’ properties.
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, joined us to discuss the case and its developments following oral argument.
For more analysis from Professor Somin, you can read his blog post on the arguments here and find his amicus brief on behalf of the CATO Institute here.
Featuring:

Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58418312Tue, 16 Jan 2024 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Devillier v. Texas. This takings case will determine whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the... The petitioners in this case sued the state after the Texas Department of Transportation elevated an interstate and constructed a barrier to obstruct natural water flow, subsequently flooding and damaging the petitioners’ properties.
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, joined us to discuss the case and its developments following oral argument.
For more analysis from Professor Somin, you can read his blog post on the arguments here and find his amicus brief on behalf of the CATO Institute here.
Featuring:

Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
]]>2174cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/conservatives-talk-presidential-power-disqualification-contempt--58331546https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58331546Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:00:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs we entered the new year, John Malcolm and John Yoo examined the latest regarding presidential power. In recent weeks, both Colorado and Maine have removed former President Donald Trump from their primary ballots under Section 3 of the...3627cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chevron-under-review-courthouse-steps-preview-loper-bright-relentless--58330764 In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will be asked whether that precedent should be overturned. Join us as a panel of experts give a preview of these two important cases in a discussion of what the Chevron doctrine has done, how these cases may affect it and the body of precedent surrounding it, and what they may mean moving forward.
Featuring:

Prof. John Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; CEO, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58330764Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyChevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while... In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will be asked whether that precedent should be overturned. Join us as a panel of experts give a preview of these two important cases in a discussion of what the Chevron doctrine has done, how these cases may affect it and the body of precedent surrounding it, and what they may mean moving forward.
Featuring:

Prof. John Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; CEO, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

]]>3717administrative law & regulatio,jurisprudence,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-january-2024--58241564
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”
Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.
U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court’s 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.
Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.
Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.
Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Featuring:

Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & Barger
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East Timor
Mark L. 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
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58241564Mon, 08 Jan 2024 14:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights,...
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”
Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.
U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court’s 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.
Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.
Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.
Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Featuring:

Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & Barger
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East Timor
Mark L. 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
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law,...]]>4988cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ethics-cle-2023-recent-developments-in-legal-ethics-professional-responsibility--58147258 In this CLE webinar, Judge Jennifer Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Andy Halaby discussed the following areas of legal ethics and professional responsibility:

Using artificial intelligence for preparation of legal documents: some ethical implications and the development of guidelines and best practices.
Insights into when unprofessional conduct becomes unethical conduct and how supervisory attorneys (and others) can help younger lawyers avoid some common ethical pitfalls.
Ethical and other issues facing compliance lawyers under Arizona’s Alternative Business Structure (ABS) law and some takeaways from Arizona’s experience three years into this experiment.
Brief overview of the ABA’s amendment to Model Rule 1.16.

Featuring:

Hon. Margaret H. Downie, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme Court
Andrew F. Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

CLE Cost:

$25/Member
$50/Non-Member

CLE Info
To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58147258Fri, 29 Dec 2023 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyCLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE. In this CLE webinar, Judge Jennifer Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Andy Halaby discussed the... In this CLE webinar, Judge Jennifer Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Andy Halaby discussed the following areas of legal ethics and professional responsibility:

Using artificial intelligence for preparation of legal documents: some ethical implications and the development of guidelines and best practices.
Insights into when unprofessional conduct becomes unethical conduct and how supervisory attorneys (and others) can help younger lawyers avoid some common ethical pitfalls.
Ethical and other issues facing compliance lawyers under Arizona’s Alternative Business Structure (ABS) law and some takeaways from Arizona’s experience three years into this experiment.
Brief overview of the ABA’s amendment to Model Rule 1.16.

Featuring:

Hon. Margaret H. Downie, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme Court
Andrew F. Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

CLE Cost:

$25/Member
$50/Non-Member

CLE Info
To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page.]]>3771cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-bella-health-and-wellness-v-weiser--58330797 Bella Health, founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, which has traditionally offered this route of care for women as a part of its life-affirming OB-GYN practice, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. A limited injunction was issued in late April, pending reports by the state's Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. The last of those regulations were issued in September. The next day, Bella again asked the Court for injunctive relief. In an order issued on October 21, 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined Colorado from enforcing the law, and the case remains live.
Join us for a litigation update on this case and what its implications may be, featuring Prof. Mark Rienzi who is President of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing Bella Health in this case.
Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. 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
(Moderator) Ms. Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58330797Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:00:20 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a Colorado faith-based healthcare provider is challenging a recent Colorado law banning a treatment commonly known as abortion pill reversal on the grounds it forced them to violate their religious beliefs. The... Bella Health, founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, which has traditionally offered this route of care for women as a part of its life-affirming OB-GYN practice, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. A limited injunction was issued in late April, pending reports by the state's Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. The last of those regulations were issued in September. The next day, Bella again asked the Court for injunctive relief. In an order issued on October 21, 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined Colorado from enforcing the law, and the case remains live.
Join us for a litigation update on this case and what its implications may be, featuring Prof. Mark Rienzi who is President of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing Bella Health in this case.
Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. 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
(Moderator) Ms. Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

]]>3251healthcare,regulatory transparency projec,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-a-felony-be-a-barrier-to-voting-behind-bars-and-beyond--58331174 Featuring:

Jeff Jacoby, Columnist, Boston Globe
Nicole Porter, Senior Director of Advocacy, The Sentencing Project
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58331174Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:32 +0000The Federalist SocietyWith campaign season in full swing, a high-stakes legal and policy battle is intensifying over whether those in prison, on probation and parole, or simply with a past felony record should be eligible to vote. In January 2024, a rare Fifth Circuit en... Featuring:

Jeff Jacoby, Columnist, Boston Globe
Nicole Porter, Senior Director of Advocacy, The Sentencing Project
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice
]]>3622civil rights,criminal law & procedure,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/conservatives-talk-presidential-power-examining-the-latest-on-impeachment-and-immunities--57997846https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57997846Mon, 11 Dec 2023 19:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Malcolm and John Yoo continued their discussion of presidential power as they examined the latest updates on former President Donald Trump's civil and criminal cases, presidential immunities, and the expected House impeachment vote.3620criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-mahmoud-v-mcknight--58348578 In light of this new statement, a coalition of parents of elementary school children in Montgomery County from a variety of faiths, including Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity, brought suit in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. They argued that the MCBOE's refusal to alert parents when potentially objectional books on sex education & related topics were being taught and to deny them the option to opt their children out of such education was violative of their free-speech, free-exercise, and substantive-due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution and under Maryland law. The parents sought a preliminary injunction against the MCBOE. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland heard oral argument on August 9, 2023. Soon after it ruled against the parents, who appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument at the 4th Circuit is set to occur on December 5.
Please join us for a Litigation Update on Mahmoud v. McKnight with Eric Baxter, who is VP & Senior Counsel at Becket and is representing the plaintiffs in this case, as he gives a breakdown of this important case concerning religious liberty, free speech, education policy, and parental rights.

Featuring:

Eric Baxter, Vice President & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Emilie Kao, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Advocacy Strategy, Alliance Defending Freedom

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58348578Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:30:36 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Fall 2022 the Montgomery County Board of Education (MCBOE) revised its literature/ language arts curriculum for Pre-K to eighth grade to include new books centered around LGBTQIA+ issues, including pride parades, gender transitioning, same-sex... In light of this new statement, a coalition of parents of elementary school children in Montgomery County from a variety of faiths, including Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity, brought suit in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. They argued that the MCBOE's refusal to alert parents when potentially objectional books on sex education & related topics were being taught and to deny them the option to opt their children out of such education was violative of their free-speech, free-exercise, and substantive-due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution and under Maryland law. The parents sought a preliminary injunction against the MCBOE. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland heard oral argument on August 9, 2023. Soon after it ruled against the parents, who appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument at the 4th Circuit is set to occur on December 5.
Please join us for a Litigation Update on Mahmoud v. McKnight with Eric Baxter, who is VP & Senior Counsel at Becket and is representing the plaintiffs in this case, as he gives a breakdown of this important case concerning religious liberty, free speech, education policy, and parental rights.

Featuring:

Eric Baxter, Vice President & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Emilie Kao, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Advocacy Strategy, Alliance Defending Freedom

]]>3362education policy,free speech & election law,litigation,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-rogers-v-hhs-maddonna-v-hhs--58331096 Two recent cases, both of which were filed while the 2019 waiver was in place, challenged the constitutionality of the waiver and, more broadly, challenged the constitutionality of the State’s licensure of and contracting with Miracle Hill, alleging it constituted an unlawful establishment of religion and allowed publicly funded discrimination on the basis of religion. One of the cases (Rogers v. HHS et al.) was brought by a same-sex couple who identified as members of the Unitarian Universalist Church. The other case (Maddonna v. HHS et al.) was brought by a prospective foster mother who claimed to be Roman Catholic but who argued she could not affirm Miracle Hill’s Christian doctrinal statement. In both cases, the plaintiffs contended Miracle Hill should be ineligible to receive the government funding traditionally provided by HHS and the State of South Carolina to licensed private foster-care agencies. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was granted in both Rogers v. HHS and Maddonna v. HHS earlier this year.
Join us as litigating attorney Miles Coleman, who represented Governor Henry McMaster and the Director of the S.C. Dept. of Social Services, provides a litigation update on these two cases concerning child welfare, a religious non-profit foster care ministry, and religion in the public square.
Featuring:

Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
(Moderator) Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58331096Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:00:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyMiracle Hill Ministries is one of nearly two dozen private entities with which the state of South Carolina contracts to help serve the thousands of children in its foster care system. Miracle Hill has been operating for over 80 years and, as a... Two recent cases, both of which were filed while the 2019 waiver was in place, challenged the constitutionality of the waiver and, more broadly, challenged the constitutionality of the State’s licensure of and contracting with Miracle Hill, alleging it constituted an unlawful establishment of religion and allowed publicly funded discrimination on the basis of religion. One of the cases (Rogers v. HHS et al.) was brought by a same-sex couple who identified as members of the Unitarian Universalist Church. The other case (Maddonna v. HHS et al.) was brought by a prospective foster mother who claimed to be Roman Catholic but who argued she could not affirm Miracle Hill’s Christian doctrinal statement. In both cases, the plaintiffs contended Miracle Hill should be ineligible to receive the government funding traditionally provided by HHS and the State of South Carolina to licensed private foster-care agencies. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was granted in both Rogers v. HHS and Maddonna v. HHS earlier this year.
Join us as litigating attorney Miles Coleman, who represented Governor Henry McMaster and the Director of the S.C. Dept. of Social Services, provides a litigation update on these two cases concerning child welfare, a religious non-profit foster care ministry, and religion in the public square.
Featuring:

Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
(Moderator) Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
]]>3690family law,federalism & separation of pow,litigation,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-young-v-colorado-department-of-corrections--57985050
Young is being represented by General Counsel of Mountain States Legal Foundation, Will Trachman. Will recently argued the case at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and will join us to discuss the case, the oral argument, and more.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57985050Tue, 05 Dec 2023 18:00:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyFormer Colorado Corrections Sergeant Josh Young is suing the Colorado Department of Corrections alleging that mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training subjected him to hostile work environment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil...
Young is being represented by General Counsel of Mountain States Legal Foundation, Will Trachman. Will recently argued the case at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and will join us to discuss the case, the oral argument, and more.]]>3591civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-fireside-chat-with-former-ftc-chairs-tim-muris-and-maureen-ohlhausen--57985754https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57985754Fri, 01 Dec 2023 17:00:58 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe current FTC has criticized prior Commission positions, stating they are making a sharp departure from the decades-long approach they inherited. Almost three years into the current administration, how have these efforts fared? Has the FTC actually...2689corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/navigating-self-defense-and-international-law-in-gaza--57869245 Join our panel of National Security and Law of Armed Conflict experts for an educational discussion of these crucial legal considerations and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Jennifer Maddocks, Assistant Professor of Law, US Military Academy, West Point
Prof. Paul Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57869245Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:26:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis webinar will explore the complex legal and humanitarian aspects surrounding recent events in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Specifically, this program will feature a discussion of Israel’s military operation in the Gaza Strip,... Join our panel of National Security and Law of Armed Conflict experts for an educational discussion of these crucial legal considerations and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Jennifer Maddocks, Assistant Professor of Law, US Military Academy, West Point
Prof. Paul Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

]]>3721cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/insights-on-the-supreme-court-s-new-ethics-guidelines--57864011 The release of a Code coincides with the Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics Practice Group's sponsorship of a National Lawyers Convention breakout panel titled "Originalist Perspectives on Ethics and the Supreme Court." The discussion, held just days before the Code's unveiling, pondered the necessity of an Ethics Code for the Supreme Court and foreshadowed lingering questions for the Court. A recording is available here.
Featuring:

Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57864011Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court formally announced a Code of Conduct, a significant development encapsulated in a 14-page document outlining five canons of conduct. Addressing issues such as judicial recusal and permissible outside activities,... The release of a Code coincides with the Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics Practice Group's sponsorship of a National Lawyers Convention breakout panel titled "Originalist Perspectives on Ethics and the Supreme Court." The discussion, held just days before the Code's unveiling, pondered the necessity of an Ethics Code for the Supreme Court and foreshadowed lingering questions for the Court. A recording is available here.
Featuring:

Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

]]>3497cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-december-2023--57863917
Brown v. United States (November 27) - Criminal Law; Whether the definition of “serious drug offense” in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect when the individual committed the firearm offense, or instead the schedules that were in effect at the time of the state drug offense.
McElrath v. Georgia (November 28) - Criminal Law, Double Jeopardy; A challenge by a Georgia man who was found not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge arising from the stabbing death of his mother and guilty but mentally ill on another charge to the state’s ability to try him again on the charge on which he was acquitted.
Wilkinson v. Garland (November 28) - Immigration; Whether federal courts have the power to review an agency’s determination that a noncitizen did not meet the “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship requirement to cancel deportation.
Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Jarkesy (November 29) - Administrative Law, Financial Services; A challenge to the SEC’s use of in-house judges.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. (December 4) - Whether the Bankruptcy Code gives a court the power to approve a release that extinguishes claims against third parties, without the consent of the individuals or entities holding the claims.
Moore v. United States (December 5) Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether a federal “mandatory repatriation tax” violates the 16th Amendment.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (December 6) - What protections does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide to employees who contend they were the victim of a discriminatory transfer?

Featuring:

Justin Aimonetti, Attorney, Dechert LLP
Adi Dynar, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law
Prof. Lindsey Simon, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University Law School
Moderator: Stephanie Maloney, Chief of Staff and Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57863917Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Brown v. United States (November 27) - Criminal Law; Whether the definition...
Brown v. United States (November 27) - Criminal Law; Whether the definition of “serious drug offense” in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect when the individual committed the firearm offense, or instead the schedules that were in effect at the time of the state drug offense.
McElrath v. Georgia (November 28) - Criminal Law, Double Jeopardy; A challenge by a Georgia man who was found not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge arising from the stabbing death of his mother and guilty but mentally ill on another charge to the state’s ability to try him again on the charge on which he was acquitted.
Wilkinson v. Garland (November 28) - Immigration; Whether federal courts have the power to review an agency’s determination that a noncitizen did not meet the “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship requirement to cancel deportation.
Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Jarkesy (November 29) - Administrative Law, Financial Services; A challenge to the SEC’s use of in-house judges.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. (December 4) - Whether the Bankruptcy Code gives a court the power to approve a release that extinguishes claims against third parties, without the consent of the individuals or entities holding the claims.
Moore v. United States (December 5) Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether a federal “mandatory repatriation tax” violates the 16th Amendment.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (December 6) - What protections does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide to employees who contend they were the victim of a discriminatory transfer?

Featuring:

Justin Aimonetti, Attorney, Dechert LLP
Adi Dynar, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law
Prof. Lindsey Simon, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University Law School
Moderator: Stephanie Maloney, Chief of Staff and Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
]]>4050cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sec-v-jarkesy--57918385
Please join us as Margaret A. Little, Counsel of Record on an amicus brief filed by New Civil Liberties Alliance, discusses the case and its developments after oral argument.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57918385Wed, 29 Nov 2023 19:00:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions are presented – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate...
Please join us as Margaret A. Little, Counsel of Record on an amicus brief filed by New Civil Liberties Alliance, discusses the case and its developments after oral argument.]]>3658litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/contracts-labor-employment-law-after-sffa--57918493
Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? How will hiring in the public and private sectors change? What about government initiatives and the public procurement process?

As employers adjust their programs and new litigation progresses through the courts, lawyers are working to advise their clients for whatever may come. Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding the greater legal landscape after SFFA.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57918493Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs violated the...
Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? How will hiring in the public and private sectors change? What about government initiatives and the public procurement process?

As employers adjust their programs and new litigation progresses through the courts, lawyers are working to advise their clients for whatever may come. Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding the greater legal landscape after SFFA.]]>3686civil rights,fourteenth amendment,labor & employment law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-moore-v-united-states--57868813
Professor James W. Ely and Professor Calvin H. Johnson joined us to discuss their amicus briefs examining the original public meaning of the taxing power and apportionment. The discussion was moderated by Elizabeth H. Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship at Pacific Legal Foundation.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57868813Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Moore v. United States. At issue is whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states. Professor James W. Ely and...
Professor James W. Ely and Professor Calvin H. Johnson joined us to discuss their amicus briefs examining the original public meaning of the taxing power and apportionment. The discussion was moderated by Elizabeth H. Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship at Pacific Legal Foundation.]]>3663federalism & separation of pow,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/conservatives-talk-presidential-power-a-look-into-the-latest-trials-testimonies-and-plea-deals--57868704https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57868704Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Malcolm and John Yoo continued their discussion of presidential power as they examine the repercussions of plea deals taken by former President Trump's allies in Georgia, Michael Cohen's testimony in the New York civil trial, and the status of...3675cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-koons-v-platkin--57835471
Among other things, the law features 25 broad categories of “sensitive places” where permit holders may not carry a firearm. Additionally, the law makes all private property presumptively a “sensitive place” and requires permit holders to obtain consent from the property owner before carrying on their property.

Chapter 131 faced legal challenge immediately upon being signed into law by the Governor of New Jersey. At the District Court level, plaintiffs argued that several of the “sensitive place” restrictions plainly violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also challenged a provision that required permit holders to render their weapons inoperable while inside a moving vehicle. The State of New Jersey has maintained that Chapter 131 is consistent with the Second Amendment and the decision in Bruen.

The District Court granted a TRO and later a preliminary injunction noting that certain parts of the law were “plainly unconstitutional.” The case is now being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where oral arguments were heard on October 25, 2023. Peter A. Patterson, Partner at Cooper & Kirk and counsel to plaintiffs, discussed the case.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57835471Tue, 14 Nov 2023 18:00:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyKoons v. Platkin is a challenge to certain provisions of New Jersey Bill A4769/S3214 – now known as Chapter 131 – that overhauled the state’s firearms and concealed carry laws following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol...
Among other things, the law features 25 broad categories of “sensitive places” where permit holders may not carry a firearm. Additionally, the law makes all private property presumptively a “sensitive place” and requires permit holders to obtain consent from the property owner before carrying on their property.

Chapter 131 faced legal challenge immediately upon being signed into law by the Governor of New Jersey. At the District Court level, plaintiffs argued that several of the “sensitive place” restrictions plainly violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also challenged a provision that required permit holders to render their weapons inoperable while inside a moving vehicle. The State of New Jersey has maintained that Chapter 131 is consistent with the Second Amendment and the decision in Bruen.

The District Court granted a TRO and later a preliminary injunction noting that certain parts of the law were “plainly unconstitutional.” The case is now being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where oral arguments were heard on October 25, 2023. Peter A. Patterson, Partner at Cooper & Kirk and counsel to plaintiffs, discussed the case.]]>3353civil rights,constitution,fourteenth amendment,second amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-states-v-rahimi--57667024 When executing a search warrant on Texas resident Zackey Rahimi's home in relation to a series of shootings in which he was a suspect, police found a rifle and pistol. Rahimi, however, was subject to a domestic violence restraining order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, a protective order that specifically barred him from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (a federal statute that makes it illegal for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a firearm).
Rahimi challenged that indictment, arguing the law is facially unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. Initially, both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and oral argument is set to go on before SCOTUS on November 7, 2023.
Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.

Featuring:

Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57667024Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyUnited States v. Rahimi, set to be argued before the Supreme Court this fall, raises the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates... When executing a search warrant on Texas resident Zackey Rahimi's home in relation to a series of shootings in which he was a suspect, police found a rifle and pistol. Rahimi, however, was subject to a domestic violence restraining order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, a protective order that specifically barred him from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (a federal statute that makes it illegal for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a firearm).
Rahimi challenged that indictment, arguing the law is facially unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. Initially, both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and oral argument is set to go on before SCOTUS on November 7, 2023.
Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.

Featuring:

Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel
]]>3672criminal law & procedure,second amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/college-admissions-after-sffa--57486073
Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? What about government initiatives? The jury is still out, but one thing will certainly change – college admissions.

How will college admissions offices across the country change their policies? What should high school students know about the changing landscape? What methods will be employed in pursuit of racial diversity? Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding college admissions after SFFA.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57486073Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions...
Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? What about government initiatives? The jury is still out, but one thing will certainly change – college admissions.

How will college admissions offices across the country change their policies? What should high school students know about the changing landscape? What methods will be employed in pursuit of racial diversity? Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding college admissions after SFFA.]]>3471affirmative action,civil rights,constitution,education policy,fourteenth amendment,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-november-2023--57442179
Culley v. Marshall (October 30) - Due Process; What test should district courts apply to determine whether a state or local government must provide a hearing to someone who has had property seized under a civil asset forfeiture law?
Lindke v. Freed (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Are public officials acting as government officials, so that they can violate the First Amendment, when they block people on their personal social media accounts that they use to communicate with the public?
Vidal v. Elster (November 1) - First Amendment, Intellectual Property; Does Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which bars the registration of a trademark which uses the name of another living person without that person’s permission, violate the Constitution when used to reject a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure?
Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (November 6) - Fair Credit Reporting Act, Sovereign Immunity; Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act clearly waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
United States v. Rahimi (November 7) - Second Amendment; Whether a federal ban on the possession of guns by individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment.
Rudisill v. McDonough (November 8) - GI Bill; Whether a veteran who has served two separate periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs.

Featuring:

Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Prof. Christa Laser, Professor, Cleveland State University of Law
Gary Lawkowski, Counsel, Dhillon Law Group
Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Laura Stanley, Judicial Law Clerk, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57442179Mon, 30 Oct 2023 13:57:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Culley v. Marshall (October 30) - Due Process; What test should district...
Culley v. Marshall (October 30) - Due Process; What test should district courts apply to determine whether a state or local government must provide a hearing to someone who has had property seized under a civil asset forfeiture law?
Lindke v. Freed (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Are public officials acting as government officials, so that they can violate the First Amendment, when they block people on their personal social media accounts that they use to communicate with the public?
Vidal v. Elster (November 1) - First Amendment, Intellectual Property; Does Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which bars the registration of a trademark which uses the name of another living person without that person’s permission, violate the Constitution when used to reject a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure?
Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (November 6) - Fair Credit Reporting Act, Sovereign Immunity; Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act clearly waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
United States v. Rahimi (November 7) - Second Amendment; Whether a federal ban on the possession of guns by individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment.
Rudisill v. McDonough (November 8) - GI Bill; Whether a veteran who has served two separate periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs.

Featuring:

Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Prof. Christa Laser, Professor, Cleveland State University of Law
Gary Lawkowski, Counsel, Dhillon Law Group
Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Laura Stanley, Judicial Law Clerk, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
]]>3471cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/pakistan-at-a-crossroads-ports-courts-and-power-games--57461152 Featuring:

Sahar Khan, Research Fellow, CATO
Michael Kugelman, Director, South Asia Institute, Wilson Center
Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Student Liaison, International & National Security Law Practice Group

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57461152Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyPakistan finds itself in yet another multi-faceted crisis. In response to numerous economic challenges, including the worst inflation in Asia and the risk of default, the government is scrambling to raise funds. But the country's socio-political... Featuring:

Sahar Khan, Research Fellow, CATO
Michael Kugelman, Director, South Asia Institute, Wilson Center
Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Student Liaison, International & National Security Law Practice Group

]]>3427cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-culley-v-marshall--57398370 The Court will hear argument on Monday, October 30, 2023, in Culley v. Marshall. Petitioners Halima Culley and Lena Sutton contend police seized their vehicles and held those vehicles for more than a year without judicial oversight. The Respondents assert that those vehicles were seized because they were being used to traffic narcotics and then Petitioners sat on their rights. Ultimately, the state court denied the Petitioners a post-seizure hearing based on the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). The Petitioners contend the court employed the wrong test and they should have received a prompt post-seizure hearing under the Due Process Clause.
Accordingly, the Question Presented in the case is: “In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.”
Stef Cassella, CEO of Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC, and Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joined us for an an exciting preview of the oral argument in Culley. The discussion was moderated by Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation.
Featuring:

Stefan Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeitrure Law, LLC
Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation



]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57398370Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyWhich Test is it Anyway? Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Right to a Prompt Post-Seizure Hearing at the High Court. The Court will hear argument on Monday, October 30, 2023, in Culley v. Marshall. Petitioners Halima Culley and Lena Sutton contend... The Court will hear argument on Monday, October 30, 2023, in Culley v. Marshall. Petitioners Halima Culley and Lena Sutton contend police seized their vehicles and held those vehicles for more than a year without judicial oversight. The Respondents assert that those vehicles were seized because they were being used to traffic narcotics and then Petitioners sat on their rights. Ultimately, the state court denied the Petitioners a post-seizure hearing based on the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). The Petitioners contend the court employed the wrong test and they should have received a prompt post-seizure hearing under the Due Process Clause.
Accordingly, the Question Presented in the case is: “In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.”
Stef Cassella, CEO of Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC, and Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joined us for an an exciting preview of the oral argument in Culley. The discussion was moderated by Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation.
Featuring:

Stefan Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeitrure Law, LLC
Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation



]]>3822cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courts-as-police-legislators-and-homeless-policy-czars-what-are-the-implications-of-grants-pass-on-local-policing-and-public-safety--57623502 In a lengthy series of opinions about these purported new rights of the homeless, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, setting up a showdown in the Supreme Court where cities, law enforcement, disability rights advocates, property owners, and homeless advocates are looking for a final resolution to the important balance of Constitutional rights and Separation of Powers concerns.

Featuring:

William R. Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice
McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP
John F. Bash, III, Partner, Quinn Emanuel
[Moderator] Antoinette T. Bacon, US Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida


]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57623502Thu, 19 Oct 2023 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyCommunities across the country are grappling with the complex issues presented by growing homeless encampments that have filled parks, blocked building entrances, and overrun sidewalks. Some observe that their ability to find effective, compassionate... In a lengthy series of opinions about these purported new rights of the homeless, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, setting up a showdown in the Supreme Court where cities, law enforcement, disability rights advocates, property owners, and homeless advocates are looking for a final resolution to the important balance of Constitutional rights and Separation of Powers concerns.

Featuring:

William R. Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice
McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP
John F. Bash, III, Partner, Quinn Emanuel
[Moderator] Antoinette T. Bacon, US Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida


]]>3644criminal law & procedure,separation of powerscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-what-it-means-to-be-human--57396942 Join us for a special 90-minute webinar conversation with Prof. Snead moderated by Prof. William Saunders on “What it Means to Be Human” -both philosophically and practically.

Featuring:

Prof. O. Carter Snead, Professor of Law, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture, & Concurrent Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame Law School
[Moderator] Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57396942Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:30:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn What It Means to Be Human - The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics Prof. O. Carter Snead investigates the tension between the natural limits of the human body and the political philosophy of autonomy, and the legal and policy challenges that... Join us for a special 90-minute webinar conversation with Prof. Snead moderated by Prof. William Saunders on “What it Means to Be Human” -both philosophically and practically.

Featuring:

Prof. O. Carter Snead, Professor of Law, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture, & Concurrent Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame Law School
[Moderator] Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America

]]>5149culture,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/loper-bright-and-the-next-steps-for-chevron-deference-at-the-supreme-court--57306457
Featuring:

Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57306457Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:00:09 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency...
Featuring:

Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
]]>3533cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-economic-power-play-examining-china-s-coercive-tactics--57196353
Featuring:


Ivan Kanapathy, Former Deputy Senior Director, National Security Council; Senior Associate (Non-resident), Center for Strategic International Studies; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service
DJ Nordquist, Former US Executive Director, World Bank
Moderator: Daniel B. Pickard, Chair, International Trade & National Security Practice Group, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney


]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57196353Wed, 11 Oct 2023 02:47:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent months, there has been a notable escalation in China’s economic coercion of various countries and private companies, prompting a pressing need for a deeper examination of this phenomenon and China’s global strategy. Our panel...
Featuring:


Ivan Kanapathy, Former Deputy Senior Director, National Security Council; Senior Associate (Non-resident), Center for Strategic International Studies; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service
DJ Nordquist, Former US Executive Director, World Bank
Moderator: Daniel B. Pickard, Chair, International Trade & National Security Practice Group, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney


]]>3490cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-fca-v-san-jose-unified-school-dist--57200158 Join us for a litigation update on this important case with Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented the FCA in this case.
Featuring:

Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57200158Thu, 05 Oct 2023 19:00:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyFellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District concerned a Christian student club's ability to meet on campuses in the San Jose School District. Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) clubs had served students in the San Jose... Join us for a litigation update on this important case with Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented the FCA in this case.
Featuring:

Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
]]>3176education policy,free speech & election law,litigation,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-congress-create-a-statutory-framework-for-digital-asset-regulation--57092862
Featuring:
--Hon. Patrick McHenry, United States Representative, NC-10
--Brian P. Brooks, Managing Partner, Valor Capital Group; Former Acting Comptroller of the Currency
--Patrick D. Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner; Adjunct Professor, Cornell Law School
--Gary Kalbaugh, Deputy General Counsel, ING Americas; Special Professor of Law, Hofstra University
--Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law, PLLC
--[Moderator] J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57092862Thu, 05 Oct 2023 18:14:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyWill the 118th Congress succeed in creating a statutory framework for effective regulation of cryptocurrencies? House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry and our expert panel discussed the status of this complex legislative issue,...
Featuring:
--Hon. Patrick McHenry, United States Representative, NC-10
--Brian P. Brooks, Managing Partner, Valor Capital Group; Former Acting Comptroller of the Currency
--Patrick D. Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner; Adjunct Professor, Cornell Law School
--Gary Kalbaugh, Deputy General Counsel, ING Americas; Special Professor of Law, Hofstra University
--Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law, PLLC
--[Moderator] J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding]]>4849cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-the-soul-of-civility--57166953
Please join us as Alexandra Hudson sits down with The Federalist Society’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Dean Reuter, to discuss The Soul of Civility.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57166953Thu, 05 Oct 2023 16:00:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn her new book, The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves, Alexandra Hudson explores the question – how can a reinvigorated dedication to civility help our nation come together despite deep and growing differences? She...
Please join us as Alexandra Hudson sits down with The Federalist Society’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Dean Reuter, to discuss The Soul of Civility.]]>3694culture,politics,professional responsibility &cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2023-ron-rotunda-memorial-webinar-the-state-of-the-legal-profession--57062001Professor Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual Teleforum in his honor.
Ron Rotunda was not only a renowned professor but also a mentor to many, including Prof. Josh Blackman, who wrote heartfelt remembrances about him on his blog here and in the Chapman Law Review here.

Featuring:
--Gregory Frederick Jacob, Parter, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP
--Moderator: Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57062001Tue, 03 Oct 2023 19:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe 2023 Ron Rotunda Memorial Webinar featured a conversation with Gregory Jacob and Prof. Josh Blackman discussing the current state of the legal culture and the future of the legal profession. Professor Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still...Professor Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual Teleforum in his honor.
Ron Rotunda was not only a renowned professor but also a mentor to many, including Prof. Josh Blackman, who wrote heartfelt remembrances about him on his blog here and in the Chapman Law Review here.

Featuring:
--Gregory Frederick Jacob, Parter, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP
--Moderator: Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
]]>3644cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-agreeing-to-disagree-how-the-establishment-clause-protects-religious-diversity-and-freedom-of-conscience--57200284
Featuring:
--Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
--Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--(Moderator) Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Pacific Legal
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57200284Tue, 03 Oct 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAgreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience investigates the questions that surround the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause, breaking down the practical history of...
Featuring:
--Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
--Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--(Moderator) Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Pacific Legal
]]>3840constitution,federalism,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-october-2023--57045357
Pulsifer v. United States (October 2) - Federal Criminal Law; Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).
CFPB v. Community Financial Servs. Ass'n of America, Ltd. (October 3) - Constitutional Law, Appropriations; Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (October 4) - Constitutional Law, Americans with Disabilities Act; Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
Murray v. UBS Securities LLC (October 10) - Labor Law, Sarbanes Oxley Act; Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (October 10) - Admiralty; Whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (October 11) - Election Law; Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent. Additionally, the court's handling of the alternative-map requirement, its treatment of the relationship between race and politics, the assessment of racial predominance in District 1, and the consideration of intentional discrimination are all under scrutiny.

Featuring:

Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
Brian Johnson, Managing Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation Group, Patomak Global Partners
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Moderator: Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57045357Tue, 03 Oct 2023 13:08:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Pulsifer v. United States (October 2) - Federal Criminal Law; Whether a...
Pulsifer v. United States (October 2) - Federal Criminal Law; Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).
CFPB v. Community Financial Servs. Ass'n of America, Ltd. (October 3) - Constitutional Law, Appropriations; Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (October 4) - Constitutional Law, Americans with Disabilities Act; Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
Murray v. UBS Securities LLC (October 10) - Labor Law, Sarbanes Oxley Act; Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (October 10) - Admiralty; Whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (October 11) - Election Law; Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent. Additionally, the court's handling of the alternative-map requirement, its treatment of the relationship between race and politics, the assessment of racial predominance in District 1, and the consideration of intentional discrimination are all under scrutiny.

Featuring:

Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
Brian Johnson, Managing Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation Group, Patomak Global Partners
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Moderator: Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

]]>3752cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-india-relations-an-important-but-ambiguous-partnership--57061185This program traced the trajectory of the US-Indian relationship, offering context to strides that've been made since the Cold War ended. With an eye to the future, this panel also evaluates possibilities for bilateral relations moving forward, examining areas of disagreement, and takes into consideration each country's strategic visions, priorities, and limitations.

Featuring:
--Sadanand Dhume, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
--[Moderator] Nitin Nainani, Student Liaison, International Law & National Security Practice Group]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57061185Mon, 02 Oct 2023 18:11:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn June, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi completed a highly-publicized visit to Washington that included a state dinner and an address to a joint meeting of Congress. This visit put a strengthened bilateral relationship on display—the United...This program traced the trajectory of the US-Indian relationship, offering context to strides that've been made since the Cold War ended. With an eye to the future, this panel also evaluates possibilities for bilateral relations moving forward, examining areas of disagreement, and takes into consideration each country's strategic visions, priorities, and limitations.

Featuring:
--Sadanand Dhume, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
--[Moderator] Nitin Nainani, Student Liaison, International Law & National Security Practice Group]]>3654cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lockstep-or-step-alone-considering-interpretations-of-the-federal-constitution-when-interpreting-state-constitutions--57086544
Featuring:
--Judge David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
--Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
--Associate Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren, Georgia Supreme Court
--Justice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
--Moderator: Justice Sarah K. Campbell, Tennessee Supreme Court]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57086544Mon, 02 Oct 2023 16:00:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyMany state constitutional provisions are worded similarly to provisions of the federal Constitution. At times, this has led some to simply assume as binding or highly persuasive the interpretations of the latter on the former. But to what degree...
Featuring:
--Judge David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
--Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
--Associate Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren, Georgia Supreme Court
--Justice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
--Moderator: Justice Sarah K. Campbell, Tennessee Supreme Court]]>3710cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-alliance-for-fair-board-recruitment-v-weber--57047901
On May 15, 2023, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the law is unconstitutional and enjoined its continued enforcement.

Additionally, California has a related statute that requires sex-based quotas for corporate boards. Both statutes are being concurrently challenged in multiple federal and state court cases. All of the federal cases – including the Alliance case – have been stayed by the Ninth Circuit. The state court cases are active and going forward.

This Litigation Update discussed the District Court’s decision in Alliance and reviewed the different cases, where they stand, and what might come next.

Featuring:
--Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57047901Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Weber is a challenge to California’s Assembly Bill 979 requiring racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation diversity on boards of public corporations located in California. The Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment is...
On May 15, 2023, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the law is unconstitutional and enjoined its continued enforcement.

Additionally, California has a related statute that requires sex-based quotas for corporate boards. Both statutes are being concurrently challenged in multiple federal and state court cases. All of the federal cases – including the Alliance case – have been stayed by the Ninth Circuit. The state court cases are active and going forward.

This Litigation Update discussed the District Court’s decision in Alliance and reviewed the different cases, where they stand, and what might come next.

Featuring:
--Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>2494civil rights,fourteenth amendment,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-bates-v-pakseresht--57058679Bates v. Pakseresht, Oregon mother-of-5 Jessica Bates is challenging the Oregon Department of Human Services’ (OHDS) rules that require all potential adoptive families to affirm and support the sexual orientation, gender identity, and/ or gender expression of any potential children placed with them.
Ms. Bates asserts that OHDS’s rules violate the “Free Speech,” and “Freedom of Assembly” clauses of the First Amendment, and has sued in Federal Court to have the OHDS rules deemed unconstitutional.
Jonathan Scruggs, lead attorney representing Ms. Bates from the Alliance Defending Freedom, joined us to provide an update on this live litigation affecting free speech, freedom of religious practice, state regulations, and child safety.

Featuring:
--Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Litigation Strategy & Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
--(Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57058679Thu, 28 Sep 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Bates v. Pakseresht, Oregon mother-of-5 Jessica Bates is challenging the Oregon Department of Human Services’ (OHDS) rules that require all potential adoptive families to affirm and support the sexual orientation, gender identity, and/ or gender...Bates v. Pakseresht, Oregon mother-of-5 Jessica Bates is challenging the Oregon Department of Human Services’ (OHDS) rules that require all potential adoptive families to affirm and support the sexual orientation, gender identity, and/ or gender expression of any potential children placed with them.
Ms. Bates asserts that OHDS’s rules violate the “Free Speech,” and “Freedom of Assembly” clauses of the First Amendment, and has sued in Federal Court to have the OHDS rules deemed unconstitutional.
Jonathan Scruggs, lead attorney representing Ms. Bates from the Alliance Defending Freedom, joined us to provide an update on this live litigation affecting free speech, freedom of religious practice, state regulations, and child safety.

Featuring:
--Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Litigation Strategy & Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
--(Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
]]>3089civil rights,free speech & election law,litigation,religious liberties,religious liberty,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/religious-liberty-and-the-court-looking-ahead-to-the-next-term--56948163
Featuring:
--Prof. Mark L. 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
--[Moderator] Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56948163Tue, 19 Sep 2023 19:00:37 +0000The Federalist Societyor the past few Supreme Court terms we have hosted Mark Rienzi, President of the Becket Fund and Professor of Law at Catholic University of America, for a discussion of Religious Liberty at the Court moderated by William Saunders, Professor and...
Featuring:
--Prof. Mark L. 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
--[Moderator] Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America]]>3266religious liberties,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-our-dear-bought-liberty-catholics-and-religious-toleration-in-early-america--56885149
Featuring:
--Prof. Michael D. Breidenbach, Associate Professor of History, Ave Maria University & Senior Affiliate for Legal Humanities, Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, University of Pennsylvania
--(Moderator) Prof. William Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56885149Fri, 15 Sep 2023 14:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his new book Our Dear-Bought Liberty: Catholics and Religious Toleration in Early America, Professor Michael D. Breidenbach investigates the way American Catholics fundamentally contributed to the conception of a separation between Church and State...
Featuring:
--Prof. Michael D. Breidenbach, Associate Professor of History, Ave Maria University & Senior Affiliate for Legal Humanities, Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, University of Pennsylvania
--(Moderator) Prof. William Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America
]]>3421founding era & history,religious libertiescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/net-choices-social-media-content-moderation-and-the-first-amendment--56947195This webinar gathered a panel of experts to discuss the appeals courts vivid differences in approach to issues arising from social media content moderation. The panel will also consider changes in the legal landscape since these petitions were filed, including whether recent Court decisions related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have bearing on the issues raised by NetChoice.

Featuring:
--Ryan Baasch, Chief of the Consumer Protection Division, Texas Office of the Attorney General
--Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
--Jess Miers, Legal Advocacy Counsel, Chamber of Progress
--Moderator: Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
---]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56947195Tue, 12 Sep 2023 17:00:30 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2021, both Florida and Texas enacted legislation to limit how social media platforms could limit what users post. The Texas law, challenged in NetChoice v. Paxton found a sympathetic audience in the Fifth Circuit, but the Eleventh Circuit was much...This webinar gathered a panel of experts to discuss the appeals courts vivid differences in approach to issues arising from social media content moderation. The panel will also consider changes in the legal landscape since these petitions were filed, including whether recent Court decisions related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have bearing on the issues raised by NetChoice.

Featuring:
--Ryan Baasch, Chief of the Consumer Protection Division, Texas Office of the Attorney General
--Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
--Jess Miers, Legal Advocacy Counsel, Chamber of Progress
--Moderator: Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
---]]>3813cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2023-annual-mike-lewis-memorial-teleforum-big-data-and-the-law-of-war--56764149
This issue implicates the UN Charter, the Law of War, International Humanitarian Law, jus in bello and jus ad bellum, attempts to formulate rules in the Tallinn Manual, conflicting priorities among nations, and pure geopolitics. Professor Paul Stephan of the University of Virginia Law School and John Eisenberg, Former Deputy Counsel to the President and NSC Legal Advisor, joined us to explore the issue.

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:
--John Eisenberg, Former Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President, Former NSC Legal Advisor
--Prof. Paul Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
--[Moderator] Vince Vitkowsky, Partner, Gfeller Laurie LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56764149Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:47:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyBig Data is one of the most important resources in the world, yet the rules for its protection are just beginning to develop. The danger comes into focus by the possibility of a nation-state cyber operation attacking Big Data and having a major...
This issue implicates the UN Charter, the Law of War, International Humanitarian Law, jus in bello and jus ad bellum, attempts to formulate rules in the Tallinn Manual, conflicting priorities among nations, and pure geopolitics. Professor Paul Stephan of the University of Virginia Law School and John Eisenberg, Former Deputy Counsel to the President and NSC Legal Advisor, joined us to explore the issue.

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:
--John Eisenberg, Former Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President, Former NSC Legal Advisor
--Prof. Paul Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
--[Moderator] Vince Vitkowsky, Partner, Gfeller Laurie LLP
]]>3568cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-harrington-v-purdue-pharma--56738399
This case involves releases in favor of the non-debtor Sackler family who owned Purdue Pharma and are accused of fueling the national opioid epidemic. Some say the bankruptcy system provides a more effective and efficient mechanism for resolving mass torts. Others say it is a vast expansion of court power without statutory or Constitutional authority.

Please join us as Professor Anthony Casey and Clifford White debate the merits of the case and discuss what to expect at the Supreme Court.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56738399Wed, 06 Sep 2023 19:30:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Harrington v. Purdue Pharma in December 2023. The case presents the issue of the authority of a court to provide a release from liability against non-consenting victims in favor of third parties who are not in...
This case involves releases in favor of the non-debtor Sackler family who owned Purdue Pharma and are accused of fueling the national opioid epidemic. Some say the bankruptcy system provides a more effective and efficient mechanism for resolving mass torts. Others say it is a vast expansion of court power without statutory or Constitutional authority.

Please join us as Professor Anthony Casey and Clifford White debate the merits of the case and discuss what to expect at the Supreme Court.]]>3960financial services & e-commerc,litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/case-preview-acheson-hotels-llc-v-laufer-considering-ada-tester-standing--56841696 At issue is whether "tester" Deborah Laufer, had standing to bring suit against Acheson Hotels. Laufer alleged that the website for a hotel operated by Acheson Hotels had insufficient information to comply with the ADA and accommodate those with disabilities. Acheson Hotels argued that since Ms. Laufer had no intention of visiting the hotel in question, she, therefore, had no standing to sue.
Ms. Laufer lost in district court, which threw out her suit for lack of standing, but the First Circuit reinstated her lawsuit, ruling she did have standing. That prompted an appeal by Acheson Hotels to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Interestingly, after certiorari was granted, Ms. Laufer dropped her case in district court after an attorney who has represented her in other cases was disciplined by a federal Court located in Maryland. Ms. Laufer's lawyers thus also asked SCOTUS to dismiss the Acheson Hotels case for mootness, given that the district case is no longer live.
Oral argument in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer is still set for October 4, 2023.
Join us as Karen Harned, who filed an amicus brief in the case, provides a preview of the case and the issues worth tracking in this conversation.

Featuring:

Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
(Moderator) Joel Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56841696Wed, 06 Sep 2023 18:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn the fall 2023 term, the Court is currently set to consider a case of whether a civil rights "tester," someone who collects information as to whether a place of public accommodation is in compliance with laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act... At issue is whether "tester" Deborah Laufer, had standing to bring suit against Acheson Hotels. Laufer alleged that the website for a hotel operated by Acheson Hotels had insufficient information to comply with the ADA and accommodate those with disabilities. Acheson Hotels argued that since Ms. Laufer had no intention of visiting the hotel in question, she, therefore, had no standing to sue.
Ms. Laufer lost in district court, which threw out her suit for lack of standing, but the First Circuit reinstated her lawsuit, ruling she did have standing. That prompted an appeal by Acheson Hotels to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Interestingly, after certiorari was granted, Ms. Laufer dropped her case in district court after an attorney who has represented her in other cases was disciplined by a federal Court located in Maryland. Ms. Laufer's lawyers thus also asked SCOTUS to dismiss the Acheson Hotels case for mootness, given that the district case is no longer live.
Oral argument in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer is still set for October 4, 2023.
Join us as Karen Harned, who filed an amicus brief in the case, provides a preview of the case and the issues worth tracking in this conversation.

Featuring:

Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
(Moderator) Joel Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

]]>3194administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-jackson-v-raffensperger--56738144Renée Flaherty and Jaimie Cavanaugh, both attorneys with the Institute for Justice, joined us to discuss the case.

Featuring:
--Renée Flaherty, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
--[Moderator] Jaimie Cavanaugh, Attorney & Legislative Counsel, Institute for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56738144Tue, 05 Sep 2023 18:00:54 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Jackson v. Raffensperger, 316 Ga. 383 (2023), the Supreme Court of Georgia struck down the state’s licensing law for lactation care providers. The law, which was the first of its kind in the nation, would have forced hundreds of women out of work....Renée Flaherty and Jaimie Cavanaugh, both attorneys with the Institute for Justice, joined us to discuss the case.

Featuring:
--Renée Flaherty, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
--[Moderator] Jaimie Cavanaugh, Attorney & Legislative Counsel, Institute for Justice]]>2238litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-louisiana-v-epa--56699174
Accordingly, the EPA has invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in some of its environmental emissions investigations even where the situation appears compliant with applicable environmental laws. One such investigation recently occurred in Louisiana where the EPA found “significant evidence” of disparate adverse impacts on Black residents of St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, and an Industrial Corridor in the area. These disparate impacts were alleged to be the result of poor air quality despite the fact that the EPA had deemed the relevant emissions compliant with applicable laws shortly before opening their civil rights investigation.

In May 2023, the Louisiana Attorney General filed suit against the EPA, arguing that EPA lacked authority to impose disparate-impact based mandates under Title VI and that the agency had unconstitutionally delegated power to special interest groups to direct how EPA conducted investigations. Shortly after the State sought a preliminary injunction, the EPA abruptly abandoned its pending investigations, although it continues to adhere to its Title VI disparate-impact regulations generally. Briefing is ongoing and a hearing has been set for January 9, 2024. Click here to view the complaint.

Drew Ensign served as Special Assistant Solicitor General and Counsel to the State of Louisiana during this matter. In this recorded webinar he delivered a Litigation Update on the case.

Featuring:
--Drew C. Ensign, Owner, Drew C. Ensign PLLC & Special Assistant Solicitor General, State of Louisiana]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56699174Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyEfforts to achieve “environmental justice” have been a top priority of the Biden Administration and its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As stated in the EPA’s FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, “EPA will center its mission on the integration of...
Accordingly, the EPA has invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in some of its environmental emissions investigations even where the situation appears compliant with applicable environmental laws. One such investigation recently occurred in Louisiana where the EPA found “significant evidence” of disparate adverse impacts on Black residents of St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, and an Industrial Corridor in the area. These disparate impacts were alleged to be the result of poor air quality despite the fact that the EPA had deemed the relevant emissions compliant with applicable laws shortly before opening their civil rights investigation.

In May 2023, the Louisiana Attorney General filed suit against the EPA, arguing that EPA lacked authority to impose disparate-impact based mandates under Title VI and that the agency had unconstitutionally delegated power to special interest groups to direct how EPA conducted investigations. Shortly after the State sought a preliminary injunction, the EPA abruptly abandoned its pending investigations, although it continues to adhere to its Title VI disparate-impact regulations generally. Briefing is ongoing and a hearing has been set for January 9, 2024. Click here to view the complaint.

Drew Ensign served as Special Assistant Solicitor General and Counsel to the State of Louisiana during this matter. In this recorded webinar he delivered a Litigation Update on the case.

Featuring:
--Drew C. Ensign, Owner, Drew C. Ensign PLLC & Special Assistant Solicitor General, State of Louisiana]]>3420civil rights,environmental & energy law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/race-school-discipline--56649240During President Obama’s second term, the U.S. Education Department began sharing studies indicating that black students were disciplined at higher rates than their white peers. These data were viewed as evidence of racial bias, and, in 2014, the Education and Justice Departments jointly published a resource package to help American schools “…promote fair and effective disciplinary practices that will make schools safe, supportive, and inclusive for all students,” (DOJ).

Supporters applauded these steps from the federal government saying they reduced schools’ racial disparities in disciplinary decisions thereby curtailing the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Critics countered that the guidance misstated federal civil rights law, encouraged racial discrimination in the allocation of school discipline to produce demographic parity, and left classrooms less functional.

The 2014 resource package was ultimately rescinded in 2018 under the Trump Administration, only to be largely restored by the Biden Administration. In May 2023, the Education and Justice Departments published a “Resource on Confronting Racial Discrimination in Student Discipline.”

What is the best path forward for appropriate and meaningful disciplinary decision making in American schools? How will our school children be best served? What does the evidence really show about race and school discipline? Please join us as an expert panel discusses the legal and educational contours of the most recent guidance on race and school discipline.

Featuring:
--Dr. Juan Del Toro, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
--Max Eden, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
--Kristen Harper, Vice President for Public Policy and Engagement, Child Trends
--Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project
--[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56649240Thu, 24 Aug 2023 18:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyDuring President Obama’s second term, the U.S. Education Department began sharing studies indicating that black students were disciplined at higher rates than their white peers. These data were viewed as evidence of racial bias, and, in 2014, the...During President Obama’s second term, the U.S. Education Department began sharing studies indicating that black students were disciplined at higher rates than their white peers. These data were viewed as evidence of racial bias, and, in 2014, the Education and Justice Departments jointly published a resource package to help American schools “…promote fair and effective disciplinary practices that will make schools safe, supportive, and inclusive for all students,” (DOJ).

Supporters applauded these steps from the federal government saying they reduced schools’ racial disparities in disciplinary decisions thereby curtailing the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Critics countered that the guidance misstated federal civil rights law, encouraged racial discrimination in the allocation of school discipline to produce demographic parity, and left classrooms less functional.

The 2014 resource package was ultimately rescinded in 2018 under the Trump Administration, only to be largely restored by the Biden Administration. In May 2023, the Education and Justice Departments published a “Resource on Confronting Racial Discrimination in Student Discipline.”

What is the best path forward for appropriate and meaningful disciplinary decision making in American schools? How will our school children be best served? What does the evidence really show about race and school discipline? Please join us as an expert panel discusses the legal and educational contours of the most recent guidance on race and school discipline.

Featuring:
--Dr. Juan Del Toro, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
--Max Eden, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
--Kristen Harper, Vice President for Public Policy and Engagement, Child Trends
--Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project
--[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>3953civil rights,education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/conservatives-talk-presidential-power-the-hunter-biden-investigations--56701341
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; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56701341Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Malcolm and John Yoo continued their discussion of presidential power with a focus on the Hunter Biden investigations. They will take a look at the probes surrounding Hunter Biden’s business dealings, the role of President Joe Biden, and 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; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution]]>3829cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/conservatives-talk-presidential-power-trump-s-indictment-in-georgia--56701382
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; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56701382Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:13 +0000The Federalist SocietyJohn Malcolm and John Yoo examined the indictment of former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election probe in Georgia as he now faces 91 charges across four separate indictments. They will discuss the facts and law of Trump's latest indictment 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; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution]]>3630cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-coalition-for-tj-v-fairfax-county-school-board--56567670
In 2020, the Fairfax County School Board enacted measures intended to increase racial diversity in TJ’s student body. These policies changed the school’s admissions process and drew criticism from some TJ parents, locals, and national observers. The changes included discontinuing the admissions test, allowing race-consciousness, and capping the number of students allowed admission from each of the district’s 23 middle schools. In the end, the new system led to a reduction in the number of Asian-American students admitted to TJ.

In March 2021, Coalition for TJ sued the Fairfax County School Board over the new admissions policies alleging discrimination against applicants of Asian heritage. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Coalition for TJ’s motion for summary judgment in February 2022. Fairfax County School Board then appealed the District Court’s permanent injunction to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit stayed the District Court order. The Coalition for TJ filed an emergency stay application to the U.S. Supreme Court but was denied; the case was remanded to the Fourth Circuit and heard in September 2022. In May 2023, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court allowing the new admissions plan to be enacted.

Coalition for TJ’s legal representation, Pacific Legal Foundation, is now planning to file a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the lead up to filing, Erin Wilcox will join us to discuss the case and offer an update on the latest events.

Featuring:
--Erin Wilcox, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56567670Thu, 17 Aug 2023 16:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyFairfax County, Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology – commonly known as TJ – is the #1 ranked public high school in the country. In 2020, the Fairfax County School Board enacted measures intended to increase racial...
In 2020, the Fairfax County School Board enacted measures intended to increase racial diversity in TJ’s student body. These policies changed the school’s admissions process and drew criticism from some TJ parents, locals, and national observers. The changes included discontinuing the admissions test, allowing race-consciousness, and capping the number of students allowed admission from each of the district’s 23 middle schools. In the end, the new system led to a reduction in the number of Asian-American students admitted to TJ.

In March 2021, Coalition for TJ sued the Fairfax County School Board over the new admissions policies alleging discrimination against applicants of Asian heritage. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Coalition for TJ’s motion for summary judgment in February 2022. Fairfax County School Board then appealed the District Court’s permanent injunction to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit stayed the District Court order. The Coalition for TJ filed an emergency stay application to the U.S. Supreme Court but was denied; the case was remanded to the Fourth Circuit and heard in September 2022. In May 2023, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court allowing the new admissions plan to be enacted.

Coalition for TJ’s legal representation, Pacific Legal Foundation, is now planning to file a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the lead up to filing, Erin Wilcox will join us to discuss the case and offer an update on the latest events.

Featuring:
--Erin Wilcox, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>2870cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-reliable-are-corporate-esg-ratings--56556127
These ranking systems, however, have raised eyebrows in light of recent news that major tobacco companies are receiving higher ESG scores than the electric car manufacturer, Tesla. Serious questions are being raised about the reliability of these rating systems as tools for investors, and whether a company's focus on diversity and inclusion on its board of directors should be considered an ethical investment, even if its main product is responsible for millions of deaths every year.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56556127Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:00:50 +0000The Federalist SocietyEnvironmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing has grown in popularity in recent years. As a result of major investment firms and individual stockholders making ethical and social considerations in their investing, firms and...
These ranking systems, however, have raised eyebrows in light of recent news that major tobacco companies are receiving higher ESG scores than the electric car manufacturer, Tesla. Serious questions are being raised about the reliability of these rating systems as tools for investors, and whether a company's focus on diversity and inclusion on its board of directors should be considered an ethical investment, even if its main product is responsible for millions of deaths every year.]]>3651cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-new-york-s-rent-stabilization-act-part-iii--56464923
A lawsuit filed in 2019, Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York, asserted that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners— violates due process and affects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. The case was first dismissed at the District level. Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling and found the 2019 amendments compliant with the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case now moves to the Supreme Court as plaintiffs—armed with 14 amicus briefs—petition the Court to reverse the Second Circuit’s decision.

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, discussed the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.

Featuring:
--Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56464923Wed, 09 Aug 2023 17:00:50 +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 in 2019, Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York, asserted that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners— violates due process and affects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. The case was first dismissed at the District level. Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling and found the 2019 amendments compliant with the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case now moves to the Supreme Court as plaintiffs—armed with 14 amicus briefs—petition the Court to reverse the Second Circuit’s decision.

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, discussed the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.

Featuring:
--Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown]]>3593litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-conversation-on-the-right-the-current-state-of-presidential-power--56479064
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; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56479064Tue, 08 Aug 2023 16:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this recorded webinar, John Malcolm and John Yoo revive their discussion of presidential power, prosecution, impeachment, and separation of powers with the prosecution of former President Donald Trump for the events surrounding the January 6, 2021...
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; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution]]>3582cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-states-leverage-their-local-market-to-force-out-of-state-regulations--56486534
This panel will discuss the decision and the originalist foundations, if any, of the dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Additionally, even if it properly exists, what is its extent and the impact of the Court’s decision?

Featuring:
--Jack Fitzhenry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
--Prof. Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
--Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
--Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56486534Tue, 01 Aug 2023 17:00:06 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow far can states use their local economy to put economic pressure on other states to change their policies? In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023), the Supreme Court considered this question, and had a very unusual split 5-4 with Justices...
This panel will discuss the decision and the originalist foundations, if any, of the dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Additionally, even if it properly exists, what is its extent and the impact of the Court’s decision?

Featuring:
--Jack Fitzhenry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
--Prof. Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
--Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
--Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>3473federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/newman-v-moore-intra-federal-circuit-dispute-raises-multiple-cross-disciplinary-issues--56268530Featuring:
--Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
--Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
--Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
--Cheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar Care
--Moderator: John J. Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56268530Fri, 28 Jul 2023 19:08:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1984, Hon. Pauline Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Newman has served on that court since, and serves to this day. Reports surfaced in April of this year that...Featuring:
--Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
--Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
--Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
--Cheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar Care
--Moderator: John J. Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
]]>3814cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/artificial-intelligence-anti-discrimination-bias--56263464
AI programs like ChatGPT learn from internet content and are liable to present opinions – specifically dominant cultural opinions – as facts. Is it inevitable that these programs will acquire and reproduce the discriminatory ideas or biases we see in humans? Because AI learns by detecting patterns in real world data, are disparate impacts unavoidable in AI systems used for hiring, lending decisions, or bail determinations? If so, how does this compare to the bias of human decision-making unaided by AI?

Increasingly, laws and regulations are being proposed to address these bias concerns. But do we need new laws or are the anti-discrimination laws that already govern human decision-makers sufficient? Please join us as an expert panel discusses these questions and more.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56263464Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:00:16 +0000The Federalist SocietyArtificial intelligence (AI) technologies are not new, but they have made rapid advances in recent years and attracted the attention of policymakers and observers from all points on the political spectrum. These advances have intensified concerns...
AI programs like ChatGPT learn from internet content and are liable to present opinions – specifically dominant cultural opinions – as facts. Is it inevitable that these programs will acquire and reproduce the discriminatory ideas or biases we see in humans? Because AI learns by detecting patterns in real world data, are disparate impacts unavoidable in AI systems used for hiring, lending decisions, or bail determinations? If so, how does this compare to the bias of human decision-making unaided by AI?

Increasingly, laws and regulations are being proposed to address these bias concerns. But do we need new laws or are the anti-discrimination laws that already govern human decision-makers sufficient? Please join us as an expert panel discusses these questions and more.]]>3514civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-buettner-hartsoe-v-baltimore-lutheran-high-school-association--56269439Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association d/b/a Concordia Preparatory School poses a question of whether Title IX applies to schools that do not receive federal financial aid.

Former students of Concordia Preparatory School, a private school, sued Concordia Prep. under Title IX alleging that the school had not adequately addressed complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Concordia Prep. argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because, as a private school that did not receive federal financial assistance, it was not subject to Title IX.

Judge Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland rejected that argument, instead holding that, because the school received a federal tax exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, it was therefore subject to Title IX because it is a 501(c)(3) organization, regardless of the fact the school does not otherwise receive direct federal aid, nor any financial aid from the U.S. Department of Education.

Traditionally, independent schools that do not receive federal financial aid have not been considered to be subject to Title IX’s requirements. This decision could substantively expand the number of schools which are interpreted to be subject to Title IX. The case is currently on appeal. Mary Margaret Beecher of Napa Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to discuss the case, the nature of the litigation, and the possible effects of this decision.

Featuring:
--Mary Margaret Beecher, Vice President and Executive Director, Napa Legal Institute
--(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56269439Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:00:23 +0000The Federalist SocietyBuettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association d/b/a Concordia Preparatory School poses a question of whether Title IX applies to schools that do not receive federal financial aid. Former students of Concordia Preparatory School, a...Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association d/b/a Concordia Preparatory School poses a question of whether Title IX applies to schools that do not receive federal financial aid.

Former students of Concordia Preparatory School, a private school, sued Concordia Prep. under Title IX alleging that the school had not adequately addressed complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Concordia Prep. argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because, as a private school that did not receive federal financial assistance, it was not subject to Title IX.

Judge Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland rejected that argument, instead holding that, because the school received a federal tax exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, it was therefore subject to Title IX because it is a 501(c)(3) organization, regardless of the fact the school does not otherwise receive direct federal aid, nor any financial aid from the U.S. Department of Education.

Traditionally, independent schools that do not receive federal financial aid have not been considered to be subject to Title IX’s requirements. This decision could substantively expand the number of schools which are interpreted to be subject to Title IX. The case is currently on appeal. Mary Margaret Beecher of Napa Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to discuss the case, the nature of the litigation, and the possible effects of this decision.

Featuring:
--Mary Margaret Beecher, Vice President and Executive Director, Napa Legal Institute
--(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP]]>2621administrative law & regulatio,education policy,litigation,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/on-regulatory-whiplash--56177551
This phenomenon of swift changes in regulatory policy is sometimes referred to as regulatory whiplash. In this recorded webinar, an expert panel discussed regulation and regulatory whiplash in the context of civil rights.

Featuring:
--Will Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation
--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
--[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56177551Wed, 19 Jul 2023 18:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe regulatory environment in the United States is often complex. State and federal laws sometimes contradict each other. The transition of the American Presidency from one political party to another can lead to rapid and dramatic changes in the...
This phenomenon of swift changes in regulatory policy is sometimes referred to as regulatory whiplash. In this recorded webinar, an expert panel discussed regulation and regulatory whiplash in the context of civil rights.

Featuring:
--Will Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation
--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
--[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>3625civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-missouri-v-biden--56177583
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants – including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Secretary Xavier Becerra, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and numerous other key federal officials – violated the First Amendment by attempting to suppress protected speech. Defendants have described the speech in question as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.

Some observers are calling the case a major battleground for the future of internet speech. In this recorded webinar Harmeet K. Dhillon and Casey Mattox delivered an update on recent events.

Featuring:
--Harmeet K. Dhillon, CEO, Center for American Liberty & Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
--[Moderator] Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56177583Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn July 4, 2023, a preliminary injunction was issued in Missouri v. Biden (Western District of Louisiana, 3:22-CV-01213). At issue is the constitutionality of alleged collusion between various federal government agencies and social media companies....
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants – including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Secretary Xavier Becerra, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and numerous other key federal officials – violated the First Amendment by attempting to suppress protected speech. Defendants have described the speech in question as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.

Some observers are calling the case a major battleground for the future of internet speech. In this recorded webinar Harmeet K. Dhillon and Casey Mattox delivered an update on recent events.

Featuring:
--Harmeet K. Dhillon, CEO, Center for American Liberty & Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
--[Moderator] Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity]]>3610first amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-we-may-dominate-the-world-ambition-anxiety-and-the-rise-of-the-american-colossus--56089984Featuring:

--Sean A. Mirski, Senior Associate, Arnold & Porter
--Moderator: Daniel G. West, Director, SCF Partners]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56089984Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:42:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn his newly released book We May Dominate the World: Ambition, Anxiety, and the Rise of the American Colossus, Sean A. Mirski tells the story of how the United States asserted its growing power in the Western hemisphere in the century following the...Featuring:

--Sean A. Mirski, Senior Associate, Arnold & Porter
--Moderator: Daniel G. West, Director, SCF Partners]]>2863cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/federal-spectrum-coordination-pitfalls-and-progress--56089700
Two former National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) administrators joined us for a discussion of how the NTIA makes spectrum policy and what reforms are needed to ensure effective federal policy that advances both federal and commercial interests.

Featuring:
--Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; Former Administrator, NTIA
--Hon. David Redl, Founder and President, Salt Point Strategies; Former Administrator, NTIA
--Moderator: Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
--Moderator: Joe Kane, Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56089700Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs wireless devices become critical to our daily lives, the process of allocating and managing electromagnetic spectrum rights has become more important but also more contested. Breakdowns in the federal spectrum coordination process and the inability...
Two former National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) administrators joined us for a discussion of how the NTIA makes spectrum policy and what reforms are needed to ensure effective federal policy that advances both federal and commercial interests.

Featuring:
--Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; Former Administrator, NTIA
--Hon. David Redl, Founder and President, Salt Point Strategies; Former Administrator, NTIA
--Moderator: Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
--Moderator: Joe Kane, Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]]>3759administrative law & regulatio,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-biden-v-nebraska--56089994
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education the authority to establish a student loan forgiveness program discharging approximately $430 billion in student loans and affecting nearly all borrowers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court’s opinion; Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion focused primarily on the Major Questions Doctrine; Justice Kagan filed the dissenting opinion.

In this recorded webinar, Jesse Panuccio discussed the decision.

Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56089994Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:00:53 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Friday, June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Biden v. Nebraska. The case arose after President Biden enacted a plan to cancel between $10,000 and $20,000 in student loans for qualified borrowers through executive action. The...
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education the authority to establish a student loan forgiveness program discharging approximately $430 billion in student loans and affecting nearly all borrowers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court’s opinion; Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion focused primarily on the Major Questions Doctrine; Justice Kagan filed the dissenting opinion.

In this recorded webinar, Jesse Panuccio discussed the decision.

Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP]]>3119administrative law & regulatio,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-arizona-v-navajo-nation--56356479On Thursday, June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the United States owes no “affirmative duty” to the Navajo Nation to secure water, reversing a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The majority held that the 1868 Treaty of Bosque Redondo did not establish a federal obligation to provide water.
The decision hinged on the way the court framed the Nation's claims. Accepting the federal government's argument, the majority viewed Indian treaties as establishing rights to various resources, including land, timber, minerals, and water. Each property right was seen as a "stick in the bundle of property rights that make up a reservation." Consequently, the burden was placed on the Navajo Nation to demonstrate that the treaty explicitly obligated the United States to go beyond recognizing tribal water rights. Drawing on precedents like United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Court held that the United States only owes obligations to Indian tribes as explicitly stated in treaties, statutes, or regulations. In other words, once the federal government recognizes tribal property rights through a treaty, its obligations are limited unless further enactments exist.
AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle joined us to break down the Court’s findings.

Featuring:
--Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder & Co-Chair, American Indian Law Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig LLP
--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56356479Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the United States owes no “affirmative duty” to the Navajo Nation to secure water, reversing a decision by the US...On Thursday, June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the United States owes no “affirmative duty” to the Navajo Nation to secure water, reversing a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The majority held that the 1868 Treaty of Bosque Redondo did not establish a federal obligation to provide water.
The decision hinged on the way the court framed the Nation's claims. Accepting the federal government's argument, the majority viewed Indian treaties as establishing rights to various resources, including land, timber, minerals, and water. Each property right was seen as a "stick in the bundle of property rights that make up a reservation." Consequently, the burden was placed on the Navajo Nation to demonstrate that the treaty explicitly obligated the United States to go beyond recognizing tribal water rights. Drawing on precedents like United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Court held that the United States only owes obligations to Indian tribes as explicitly stated in treaties, statutes, or regulations. In other words, once the federal government recognizes tribal property rights through a treaty, its obligations are limited unless further enactments exist.
AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle joined us to break down the Court’s findings.

Featuring:
--Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder & Co-Chair, American Indian Law Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig LLP
--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
]]>3584cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-303-creative-v-elenis--56061957
The Court ruled “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”

In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, a panel of experts broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

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/56061957Fri, 07 Jul 2023 16:00:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 30, 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decided 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Petitioner Lorie Smith, an artist in Colorado and owner/founder of the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC. challenged Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) on the grounds it...
The Court ruled “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”

In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, a panel of experts broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

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

]]>3604civil rights,free speech & election law,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-counterman-v-colorado--56061943
In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56061943Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Counterman v. Colorado, the Court considered a question of free speech and criminal law: whether, in order for a statement to be categorized as a "true threat" and thus not protected under a right to free speech, the speaker must subjectively know...
In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
]]>1853criminal law & procedure,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-samia-v-united-states--56027672Samia v. United States. The main question at issue in the case was whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held “the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction.”

In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, we will broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56027672Wed, 05 Jul 2023 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in Samia v. United States. The main question at issue in the case was whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its...Samia v. United States. The main question at issue in the case was whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held “the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction.”

In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, we will broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP]]>2207criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-groff-v-dejoy--56027662Groff v. DeJoy, the Court held “ Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

The case involved Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, who formerly worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. His refusal to violate his beliefs to work Sunday shifts led to disciplinary action and his eventual resignation. Groff sued and the following litigation raised two questions that the Court considered. Both concerned the protections provided to employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. One was whether the Court should overrule the “more-than-de-minimis-cost” test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. The other concerned whether burdens on employees are sufficient to constitute “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” for the employer under Title VII.

In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where we broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
--Bruce Cameron, Senior Atorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56027662Wed, 05 Jul 2023 16:00:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 29, 2023 SCOTUS issued an opinion concerning Title VII, religious liberties, and employment law. In deciding Groff v. DeJoy, the Court held “ Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of...Groff v. DeJoy, the Court held “ Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

The case involved Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, who formerly worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. His refusal to violate his beliefs to work Sunday shifts led to disciplinary action and his eventual resignation. Groff sued and the following litigation raised two questions that the Court considered. Both concerned the protections provided to employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. One was whether the Court should overrule the “more-than-de-minimis-cost” test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. The other concerned whether burdens on employees are sufficient to constitute “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” for the employer under Title VII.

In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where we broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
--Bruce Cameron, Senior Atorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
]]>3375labor & employment law,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-sffa-v-harvard--55930798
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court; Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissenting opinions. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of SFFA v. Harvard.

Listen to this recorded webinar where Curt Levey discusses the decision.

Featuring:
--Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55930798Fri, 30 Jun 2023 19:00:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The opinion jointly addressed the issues presented in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North...
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court; Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissenting opinions. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of SFFA v. Harvard.

Listen to this recorded webinar where Curt Levey discusses the decision.

Featuring:
--Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice]]>3625cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-mallory-v-norfolk-southern-railway-co--55930440
The Court vacated and remanded the case in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch holding that the law comports with the Due Process Clause as set forth in Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. (243 U.S. 93). Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion.

In this recorded webinar Ashley Keller, John Masslon, and Professor Brian Fitzpatrick discuss the decision.

Featuring:
--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman
--John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
--[Moderator] Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55930440Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:00:56 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Tuesday, June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. The question before the Court was whether a Pennsylvania law governing out-of-state corporations registered to do business inside the state...
The Court vacated and remanded the case in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch holding that the law comports with the Due Process Clause as set forth in Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. (243 U.S. 93). Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion.

In this recorded webinar Ashley Keller, John Masslon, and Professor Brian Fitzpatrick discuss the decision.

Featuring:
--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman
--John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
--[Moderator] Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School]]>3800litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-wilkins-v-united-states--55425229
The Court held that the Act’s statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule because a procedural requirement is only jurisdictional if Congress clearly states that it is. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, dissented and would have held the time-bar jurisdictional because it is a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Jeffrey W. McCoy, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, joined us for a courthouse steps decision teleforum moderated by Adam Griffin.

Featuring:
--Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55425229Wed, 28 Jun 2023 17:08:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Wilkins v. United States. The case involves a suit by neighbors to quiet title over a road easement that the United States interprets as allowing for public use. The United States argued...
The Court held that the Act’s statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule because a procedural requirement is only jurisdictional if Congress clearly states that it is. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, dissented and would have held the time-bar jurisdictional because it is a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Jeffrey W. McCoy, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, joined us for a courthouse steps decision teleforum moderated by Adam Griffin.

Featuring:
--Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts]]>1999cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-moore-v-harper--55930063
In a 6-3 decision, the Court rejected the “independent state legislature” doctrine recognizing the North Carolina Supreme Court’s authority to review the legislature’s rules for federal elections. Chief Justice Roberts issued the opinion of the Court; Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion; Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

In this recorded Teleforum Andrew Grossman discussed the Court’s opinion.

Featuring:
--Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55930063Wed, 28 Jun 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Tuesday, June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Moore v. Harper. The case concerned the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution and “the claim that the Clause vests state legislatures with authority to set rules governing federal...
In a 6-3 decision, the Court rejected the “independent state legislature” doctrine recognizing the North Carolina Supreme Court’s authority to review the legislature’s rules for federal elections. Chief Justice Roberts issued the opinion of the Court; Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion; Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

In this recorded Teleforum Andrew Grossman discussed the Court’s opinion.

Featuring:
--Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
]]>3626free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-fcc-s-digital-discrimination-rulemaking-facilitating-equal-access-to-broadband-services--55426436
Given the importance of widespread access to broadband services, the "Digital Discrimination" proceeding is one of the most important items on the FCC's agenda. Does the agency have authority to adopt rules that would impose liability on broadband providers based only on a showing of unintentional disparate impact or is evidence of intentional discrimination required? In considering liability, how should the agency take into account claims relating to the technical and economic feasibility of making available access? What impact will the rules have on investment and innovation under various scenarios? What type of process should the Commission employ in considering complaints of digital discrimination?

A panel of experts joined us for a lively discussion of these and other questions as the FCC prepares to adopt final rules in the digital discrimination proceeding.

Featuring:
--Seth L. Cooper, Director of Policy Studies & Senior Fellow, The Free State Foundation
--Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge
--Clint Odom, Vice President, Strategic Alliances & External Affairs, T-Mobile
--Moderator: Randolph J. May, President, The Free State Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55426436Wed, 28 Jun 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into law on November 15, 2021, requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), within two years, to promulgate rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet services and to prevent...
Given the importance of widespread access to broadband services, the "Digital Discrimination" proceeding is one of the most important items on the FCC's agenda. Does the agency have authority to adopt rules that would impose liability on broadband providers based only on a showing of unintentional disparate impact or is evidence of intentional discrimination required? In considering liability, how should the agency take into account claims relating to the technical and economic feasibility of making available access? What impact will the rules have on investment and innovation under various scenarios? What type of process should the Commission employ in considering complaints of digital discrimination?

A panel of experts joined us for a lively discussion of these and other questions as the FCC prepares to adopt final rules in the digital discrimination proceeding.

Featuring:
--Seth L. Cooper, Director of Policy Studies & Senior Fellow, The Free State Foundation
--Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge
--Clint Odom, Vice President, Strategic Alliances & External Affairs, T-Mobile
--Moderator: Randolph J. May, President, The Free State Foundation]]>3645administrative law & regulatio,corporations,securities & antitrust,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/major-questions-doctrine-and-the-tech-and-telecom-sectors-after-west-virginia-v-epa--55300073
Featuring:
--Ian Heath Gershengorn, Partner and Chair, Appellate & Supreme Court Practice, Jenner & Block LLP; Former Acting Solicitor General
--Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Wiley Rein LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
--Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Partner and Chair, Antitrust & Competition Practice, Baker Botts LLP; Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
--Christopher J. Wright, Partner and Co-Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
--Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55300073Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyLast year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Court reinvigorated the “Major Questions Doctrine” of administrative law. Given the Federal Trade Commission’s efforts to expand its rulemaking powers under...
Featuring:
--Ian Heath Gershengorn, Partner and Chair, Appellate & Supreme Court Practice, Jenner & Block LLP; Former Acting Solicitor General
--Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Wiley Rein LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
--Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Partner and Chair, Antitrust & Competition Practice, Baker Botts LLP; Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
--Christopher J. Wright, Partner and Co-Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
--Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]]>3634administrative law & regulatio,corporations,securities & antitrust,supreme court,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-haaland-v-brackeen--55637042
In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s finding that the ICWA is constitutional, rejected petitioners’ Tenth Amendment argument, and found that petitioners lacked the standing required for other challenges made. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion for the Court; Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions.

In this recorded webinar Jennifer Weddle discussed the Court’s findings.

Featuring:
--Jennifer Weddle, Principal Shareholder & Co-Chair, American Indian Law Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55637042Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:00:08 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, June 15, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Haaland v. Brackeen. The case was primarily concerned with the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law enacted in 1978 that governs state-level...
In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s finding that the ICWA is constitutional, rejected petitioners’ Tenth Amendment argument, and found that petitioners lacked the standing required for other challenges made. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion for the Court; Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions.

In this recorded webinar Jennifer Weddle discussed the Court’s findings.

Featuring:
--Jennifer Weddle, Principal Shareholder & Co-Chair, American Indian Law Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
]]>3529civil rights,constitution,family law,federalism,litigation,state courtscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-judge-amul-thapar-on-the-people-s-justice--55282150 In this video podcast, Judge Thapar joined the Federalist Society's Dean Reuter to discuss the book and Justice Thomas's legacy.
Featuring:

Hon. Amul R. Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Federalist Society

Transcript]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55282150Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:51:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn June 20, Judge Amul Thapar of the Sixth Circuit published "The People's Justice," in which he explores "the human stories behind twelve illustrative cases on which Justice [Clarence] Thomas has ruled." In this video podcast, Judge Thapar joined... In this video podcast, Judge Thapar joined the Federalist Society's Dean Reuter to discuss the book and Justice Thomas's legacy.
Featuring:

Hon. Amul R. Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Federalist Society

Transcript]]>3173litigation,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-united-states-v-hansen--55967795
Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts. The Court heard Oral Argument on March 27, 2023.

In this recorded Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where we broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55967795Mon, 26 Jun 2023 19:00:14 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Friday, June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States v. Hansen. At issue in Hansen was whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), a federal criminal statute that prohibits encouraging or inducing unlawful...
Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts. The Court heard Oral Argument on March 27, 2023.

In this recorded Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where we broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision.

Featuring:
--Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
]]>2862civil rights,criminal law & procedure,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/transatlantic-debate-evaluating-the-eu-us-data-privacy-framework--55102533
Our experts discussed whether the Framework addresses the concerns of privacy advocates in the EU and the U.S., and they considered the implications of the review process for U.S. intelligence collection. This program also explored whether the EU and U.S. can reach a durable privacy agreement given the tension between EU privacy preferences and U.S. national security needs.

Featuring:
--Max Schrems, Founder, NOYB
--Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
--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/55102533Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn October 2022, President Biden issued an executive order regarding the European Union - U.S. Data Privacy Framework. The Framework allows for data flows between the EU and the U.S., and it was established after the European Court of Justice struck...
Our experts discussed whether the Framework addresses the concerns of privacy advocates in the EU and the U.S., and they considered the implications of the review process for U.S. intelligence collection. This program also explored whether the EU and U.S. can reach a durable privacy agreement given the tension between EU privacy preferences and U.S. national security needs.

Featuring:
--Max Schrems, Founder, NOYB
--Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
--Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute]]>3714international & national secur,security & privacycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/burnett-v-smith-implied-rights-of-action--55260195If a federal agent violates a citizen’s constitutional rights, does a justiciable cause of action arise? If yes, do federal courts have the power to award damages for constitutional violations? These questions have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) and Egbert v. Boule (2022).

Three state supreme courts have recently issued competing decisions on whether similar separation of powers concerns arise when state courts recognize rights under state constitutions.

Burnett v. Smith, issued on May 5, 2023, was the latest of these three decisions. The case arose after the plaintiff, garbage truck driver Cory Burnett, was pulled over by Iowa Department of Transportation Officer Philip Smith for a cracked windshield. Burnett was eventually arrested by Officer Smith for interference with official acts (Iowa Code §719.1). The charges were ultimately dismissed following a trial. Later, Burnett sued Officer Smith for, among other things, an unreasonable seizure directly under the Iowa Constitution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa unanimously affirmed the district court’s judgment against Burnett and, in the process, held that courts in Iowa cannot imply remedies directly under the Iowa constitution, overruling Godfrey v. State (898 N.W.2d, 2017).

In alignment with recent federal precedent, the court held that letting plaintiffs bring constitutional claims without the Iowa legislature first authorizing them “undermined the established allocation of responsibility between the legislative and the judicial branches of government.” This holding is at odds with decisions in Michigan (Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency) and Nevada (Mack v. Williams) where plaintiffs are allowed to sue without a legislative cause of action, provided certain conditions are met.
Are state courts allowed to recognize remedies directly under their state constitutions? Or are they similarly constrained by separation of powers? In this recorded webinar discussion Anya Bidwell and Erin Hawley consider these questions and more.


Featuring:
--Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55260195Thu, 22 Jun 2023 17:00:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyIf a federal agent violates a citizen’s constitutional rights, does a justiciable cause of action arise? If yes, do federal courts have the power to award damages for constitutional violations? These questions have been considered by the U.S. Supreme...If a federal agent violates a citizen’s constitutional rights, does a justiciable cause of action arise? If yes, do federal courts have the power to award damages for constitutional violations? These questions have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) and Egbert v. Boule (2022).

Three state supreme courts have recently issued competing decisions on whether similar separation of powers concerns arise when state courts recognize rights under state constitutions.

Burnett v. Smith, issued on May 5, 2023, was the latest of these three decisions. The case arose after the plaintiff, garbage truck driver Cory Burnett, was pulled over by Iowa Department of Transportation Officer Philip Smith for a cracked windshield. Burnett was eventually arrested by Officer Smith for interference with official acts (Iowa Code §719.1). The charges were ultimately dismissed following a trial. Later, Burnett sued Officer Smith for, among other things, an unreasonable seizure directly under the Iowa Constitution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa unanimously affirmed the district court’s judgment against Burnett and, in the process, held that courts in Iowa cannot imply remedies directly under the Iowa constitution, overruling Godfrey v. State (898 N.W.2d, 2017).

In alignment with recent federal precedent, the court held that letting plaintiffs bring constitutional claims without the Iowa legislature first authorizing them “undermined the established allocation of responsibility between the legislative and the judicial branches of government.” This holding is at odds with decisions in Michigan (Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency) and Nevada (Mack v. Williams) where plaintiffs are allowed to sue without a legislative cause of action, provided certain conditions are met.
Are state courts allowed to recognize remedies directly under their state constitutions? Or are they similarly constrained by separation of powers? In this recorded webinar discussion Anya Bidwell and Erin Hawley consider these questions and more.


Featuring:
--Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom]]>3678civil rights,constitution,due process,federalism,litigation,separation of powers,state constitutions,state courtscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dueling-decisions-on-the-regulation-and-distribution-of-mifepristone-ahm-v-fda-wa-v-fda--55158665
In AHM v. FDA, a judge out of the Northern District of Texas blocked the FDA’s approval of the drug, meaning it could no longer be distributed as an FDA-approved drug. The same day, in WA v. FDA, however, a separate district judge ruled the FDA was being overly restrictive and barred it from altering the regulatory status of Mifepristone in approximately a third of the country. Perhaps due to the drastic split between the courts, both cases have quickly ascended through the courts of appeals.

Join our panel of experts, including Adam Unikowsky --a partner at Jenner & Block who has written substantively on the issue and and whose firm submitted an amicus brief on behalf of numerous organizations in support of the FDA in AHM v. FDA, and Thomas Jipping –a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation where he has published on these issues, in a conversation moderated by Jennie Lichter as they discuss these cases, their substance, and the possible ramifications of future decisions.

Featuring:

Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
[Moderator] Jennie Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55158665Wed, 21 Jun 2023 18:00:45 +0000The Federalist SocietyTwo cases concerning the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. United States Food and Drug Administration (AHM v. FDA) and Washington v. United States Food and Drug Administration (WA v. FDA) have caused...
In AHM v. FDA, a judge out of the Northern District of Texas blocked the FDA’s approval of the drug, meaning it could no longer be distributed as an FDA-approved drug. The same day, in WA v. FDA, however, a separate district judge ruled the FDA was being overly restrictive and barred it from altering the regulatory status of Mifepristone in approximately a third of the country. Perhaps due to the drastic split between the courts, both cases have quickly ascended through the courts of appeals.

Join our panel of experts, including Adam Unikowsky --a partner at Jenner & Block who has written substantively on the issue and and whose firm submitted an amicus brief on behalf of numerous organizations in support of the FDA in AHM v. FDA, and Thomas Jipping –a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation where he has published on these issues, in a conversation moderated by Jennie Lichter as they discuss these cases, their substance, and the possible ramifications of future decisions.

Featuring:

Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
[Moderator] Jennie Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America
]]>3401administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,federal courts,federalism,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-start-nuclear-weapons-and-the-new-landscape-arms-control-and-deterrence-post-ukraine--54550345

Featuring:
--Stephen P. Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
--Moderator: Dan West, Director, SCF Partners]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54550345Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:45:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn February 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would withdraw from the New START arms reduction treaty, which was the last remaining arms control treaty between the two nations that together control almost 90% of the world’s...

Featuring:
--Stephen P. Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
--Moderator: Dan West, Director, SCF Partners]]>3949cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-sackett-v-environmental-protection-agency--54550270
Listen to a recording of this panel as they discuss the Court’s decision, how it might impact the Biden EPA’s recently adopted regulation, and the future of the Clean Water Act.

Featuring:
--Moderator: Hon. Thomas Griffith, Fmr. Judge, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit; Special Counsel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
--Deidre Duncan, Partner & Environmental Practice Group Leader, Hunton Andrews Kurth
--Tom Ward, Vice President for Litigation, National Association of Home Builders
--Sambhav Sankar, Senior Vice President of Programs, Earthjustice
Professor William W. Buzbee, Director, Environmental Law & Policy Program, Georgetown Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54550270Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:10:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Sackett, the Court clarified one of the longest-standing environmental law challenges: defining “waters of the United States.” The Court unanimously rejected the “significant nexus” test for jurisdiction and adopted the “relatively permanent...
Listen to a recording of this panel as they discuss the Court’s decision, how it might impact the Biden EPA’s recently adopted regulation, and the future of the Clean Water Act.

Featuring:
--Moderator: Hon. Thomas Griffith, Fmr. Judge, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit; Special Counsel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
--Deidre Duncan, Partner & Environmental Practice Group Leader, Hunton Andrews Kurth
--Tom Ward, Vice President for Litigation, National Association of Home Builders
--Sambhav Sankar, Senior Vice President of Programs, Earthjustice
Professor William W. Buzbee, Director, Environmental Law & Policy Program, Georgetown Law]]>4354cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-allen-v-milligan--55259281On Thursday, June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Allen v. Milligan. The case considered whether the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act. §2 of the Voting Rights Act reads – “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

In a 5-4 decision with one concurring and two dissenting opinions, the Court held that “plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that HB1 violates §2,” 598 U.S. ___ (2023). The 112-page opinion is complex; it examines a considerable body of court precedent and law. Some court watchers and media outlets have described the Court’s opinion as a surprise.

In this recorded webinar, Professor Michael R. Dimino discusses the Court’s opinion and what might come next.

Featuring:
--Professor Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/55259281Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:00:52 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Allen v. Milligan. The case considered whether the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act. §2 of...On Thursday, June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Allen v. Milligan. The case considered whether the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act. §2 of the Voting Rights Act reads – “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

In a 5-4 decision with one concurring and two dissenting opinions, the Court held that “plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that HB1 violates §2,” 598 U.S. ___ (2023). The 112-page opinion is complex; it examines a considerable body of court precedent and law. Some court watchers and media outlets have described the Court’s opinion as a surprise.

In this recorded webinar, Professor Michael R. Dimino discusses the Court’s opinion and what might come next.

Featuring:
--Professor Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School]]>3131first amendment,free speech & election law,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/city-hall-and-chevron-administrative-deference-at-the-local-government-level--54556307
Featuring:
--Amanda Conn, General Counsel, WSSC Water; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington Law School
--Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington Law School; Former OFCCP Director and Former Coral Gables City Attorney
--Michael Murawski, Executive Director, City of Naples Commission on Ethics and Government Integrity
--(Moderator) Hon. Alexander S. Bokor, Judge, Florida Third District Court of Appeal; Former Assistant County Attorney for Miami-Dade County
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54556307Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:00:43 +0000The Federalist SocietyMost of the public debate about administrative deference has been focused on federal agencies and the Chevron and Auer doctrines. There is an old adage though that “You can’t fight City Hall.” This panel discussion among current and former local...
Featuring:
--Amanda Conn, General Counsel, WSSC Water; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington Law School
--Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington Law School; Former OFCCP Director and Former Coral Gables City Attorney
--Michael Murawski, Executive Director, City of Naples Commission on Ethics and Government Integrity
--(Moderator) Hon. Alexander S. Bokor, Judge, Florida Third District Court of Appeal; Former Assistant County Attorney for Miami-Dade County
]]>3718administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-voices-in-administrative-law-the-emerging-debates-on-ai-regulation--54556337 Featuring:

Eli Nachmany, Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Laura Stanley, Law Clerk to Hon. Stephen Schwartz, U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Seanhenry VanDyke, Law Clerk to Hon. Gregory Katsas, U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
[Moderator] Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School




]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54556337Tue, 13 Jun 2023 16:00:41 +0000The Federalist SocietyArtificial intelligence is a remarkable, disruptive force. AI services like ChatGPT already perform tasks once thought impossible for computers to complete. And AI's capabilities are growing exponentially. Although AI promises many benefits, it also... Featuring:

Eli Nachmany, Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Laura Stanley, Law Clerk to Hon. Stephen Schwartz, U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Seanhenry VanDyke, Law Clerk to Hon. Gregory Katsas, U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
[Moderator] Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School




]]>3614administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/504-regulations-under-the-current-administration--54358882
The Biden Administration has wrestled with Section 504 on issues like remote learning, masking, transgender status, child welfare, and more. Additionally, there has been increased discussion surrounding Section 504's applicability to private schools. Some disability advocates have argued that Section 504 is outdated and needs to be revamped before the end of President Biden's first term.

What updates to Section 504 can we expect? What trends have experts observed in 504 regulations before and after President Biden took office? Does Section 504 inadequately address disability discrimination today? Please join us as Kim Richey and Professor Robert Dinerstein consider these questions and more.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54358882Thu, 08 Jun 2023 18:00:02 +0000The Federalist SocietySection 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects qualified "individuals with disabilities" from discrimination by "programs or activities" that receive federal funding. The word disability is defined in Title 42 USC Section 12102, and it is...
The Biden Administration has wrestled with Section 504 on issues like remote learning, masking, transgender status, child welfare, and more. Additionally, there has been increased discussion surrounding Section 504's applicability to private schools. Some disability advocates have argued that Section 504 is outdated and needs to be revamped before the end of President Biden's first term.

What updates to Section 504 can we expect? What trends have experts observed in 504 regulations before and after President Biden took office? Does Section 504 inadequately address disability discrimination today? Please join us as Kim Richey and Professor Robert Dinerstein consider these questions and more.]]>3644civil rights,education policy,healthcarecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-is-the-future-of-textualism--54101677
Featuring:

--Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
--Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
--Prof. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
--[Moderator] Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Related Links:
The 2023 Scalia Lecture: Beyond Textualism?, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, 2023, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
Interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, 98 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4340363.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54101677Thu, 01 Jun 2023 18:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyRecently, the application of Textualism by the Supreme Court of the United States--the predominant method of statutory interpretation that favors the plain meaning of text over legislative intent, statutory purpose, or legislative history--has given...
Featuring:

--Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
--Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
--Prof. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
--[Moderator] Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Related Links:
The 2023 Scalia Lecture: Beyond Textualism?, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, 2023, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
Interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, 98 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4340363.]]>3617administrative law & regulatio,constitution,jurisprudencecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-amgen-inc-v-sanofi--54045822
Specifically at issue was "whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specifications teach those skilled in the art to 'make and use' the claimed invention, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art 'to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments' without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial 'time and effort.'"

Robert Rando, an intellectual property attorney who filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to unpack the decision.

Featuring:
--Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54045822Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 18, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Sanofi in its dispute with Amgen over alleged patent infringement. The case involved the application of the statutory enablement requirement of Section 112 of the patent laws to what is...
Specifically at issue was "whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specifications teach those skilled in the art to 'make and use' the claimed invention, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art 'to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments' without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial 'time and effort.'"

Robert Rando, an intellectual property attorney who filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to unpack the decision.

Featuring:
--Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP]]>2076intellectual property,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-tyler-v-hennepin-county-minnesota--54065472
Hennepin County foreclosed on Geraldine Tyler's home to cover her delinquent property taxes, having sold the home for $40,000 and retained the $25,000 surplus as profit. Tyler argued that the county could not take the equity in her home and asked the Supreme Court to declare the forfeiture of her home's equity as an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. The county maintained that Tyler had sufficient time to pay her taxes and was not entitled to any refund.

The Court unanimously ruled that such practices qualify as takings requiring the payment of "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It also concluded that state law is not the sole source of the definition of property rights under the Takings Clause, and therefore state governments cannot seize private property without compensation simply by redefining it as the state's property.

Listen to Tony Francois's analysis of the decision and discussion the potential implications from this landmark ruling.

Featuring:
--Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54065472Tue, 30 May 2023 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, a landmark case addressing property rights under the Takings Clause. The case specifically focuses on the issue of "home equity theft,"...
Hennepin County foreclosed on Geraldine Tyler's home to cover her delinquent property taxes, having sold the home for $40,000 and retained the $25,000 surplus as profit. Tyler argued that the county could not take the equity in her home and asked the Supreme Court to declare the forfeiture of her home's equity as an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. The county maintained that Tyler had sufficient time to pay her taxes and was not entitled to any refund.

The Court unanimously ruled that such practices qualify as takings requiring the payment of "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It also concluded that state law is not the sole source of the definition of property rights under the Takings Clause, and therefore state governments cannot seize private property without compensation simply by redefining it as the state's property.

Listen to Tony Francois's analysis of the decision and discussion the potential implications from this landmark ruling.

Featuring:
--Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>2730cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-andy-warhol-foundation-for-the-visual-arts-inc-v-goldsmith--54045753
Intellectual property law professor Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Goldsmith, joined us to break down the decision and answer audience questions.

Featuring:
--Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/54045753Tue, 30 May 2023 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn May 18, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith in a dispute between Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation regarding Warhol’s works based on Goldsmith’s photo of the musician Prince. The fair use doctrine...
Intellectual property law professor Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Goldsmith, joined us to break down the decision and answer audience questions.

Featuring:
--Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law]]>2836intellectual property,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-gonzalez-v-google-twitter-inc-v-taamneh--53996450On Thursday, May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued opinions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. In the Twitter case, the Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that plaintiffs “failed to state a claim under [18 U.S.C.] §2333(d)(2).” Justice Thomas wrote for the Court and Justice Jackson issued a concurring opinion. In Gonzalez, the Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating and remanding the case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Twitter holding.

The Gonzalez and Twitter cases were of great interest to some Court watchers because of their potential ramifications for Section 230 and social media platforms’ liability for bad outcomes connected to hosted content.

In this recorded webinar Erik Jaffe discussed the Court’s opinions and what comes next.

Featuring:
--Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53996450Mon, 22 May 2023 19:00:12 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Thursday, May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued opinions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. In the Twitter case, the Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that plaintiffs “failed to state a claim under [18 U.S.C.]...On Thursday, May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued opinions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. In the Twitter case, the Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that plaintiffs “failed to state a claim under [18 U.S.C.] §2333(d)(2).” Justice Thomas wrote for the Court and Justice Jackson issued a concurring opinion. In Gonzalez, the Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating and remanding the case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Twitter holding.

The Gonzalez and Twitter cases were of great interest to some Court watchers because of their potential ramifications for Section 230 and social media platforms’ liability for bad outcomes connected to hosted content.

In this recorded webinar Erik Jaffe discussed the Court’s opinions and what comes next.

Featuring:
--Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>2344first amendmentcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/higher-ed-dei--53988162
Do DEI practices in colleges and universities result in a better product for students? Do they improve campus communities?

Some argue that, yes, DEI is integral to a high-functioning university. These practices improve viewpoint diversity, make students feel more at home on their campuses, and help marginalized groups attain a quality education. Others argue that commitment to DEI has resulted in bloated administrations that increase tuition costs without delivering a better product. Moreover, DEI initiatives support some identity groups at the cost of others, and a fervent commitment to DEI can produce exclusive and unfair outcomes.

In this program, Ilya Shapiro and Professor Todd Clark discussed the merits of DEI initiatives and how state-level policy could shape the future of DEI on campus.

Featuring:
--Ilya Shapiro, Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute
--Professor Todd Clark, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, St. Thomas University Law School
--[Moderator] Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53988162Thu, 18 May 2023 17:00:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn recent years, American organizations of all kinds have dedicated resources towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. These initiatives have become a staple of policy, hiring practices, personnel training, organizational structure,...
Do DEI practices in colleges and universities result in a better product for students? Do they improve campus communities?

Some argue that, yes, DEI is integral to a high-functioning university. These practices improve viewpoint diversity, make students feel more at home on their campuses, and help marginalized groups attain a quality education. Others argue that commitment to DEI has resulted in bloated administrations that increase tuition costs without delivering a better product. Moreover, DEI initiatives support some identity groups at the cost of others, and a fervent commitment to DEI can produce exclusive and unfair outcomes.

In this program, Ilya Shapiro and Professor Todd Clark discussed the merits of DEI initiatives and how state-level policy could shape the future of DEI on campus.

Featuring:
--Ilya Shapiro, Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute
--Professor Todd Clark, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, St. Thomas University Law School
--[Moderator] Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
]]>4090civil rights,education policycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/debating-state-sentences-for-violent-crime-how-tough-is-tough-enough--53962873Following a surge in many types of violent crime in 2020 and 2021 that has only recently begun to ebb in some places, many state legislatures, especially in southern states, have passed or are considering policies that are designed to result in longer periods behind bars for those convicted of serious violent crimes. Policy proposals include imposing or lengthening mandatory minimums, removing parole eligibility in certain cases, and requiring that a high percentage of the sentence be served behind bars (often referred to as “truth-in-sentencing”). However, there are also countervailing trends in states like California. Determining the right approach to sentencing and time served raises several questions:

1. What is the proper balance between uniformity and discretion and the degree of influence exercised by legislators versus prosecutors and judges?
2. To what degree is the focus on the length of the sentence or period of incarceration, as opposed to certainty that a significant percentage of the sentence, whatever its length, be served behind bars?
3. Given that elderly individuals have the lowest recidivism rates, would we be shortchanging public safety if we allocate too much prison space to those who committed a heinous crime decades ago as opposed to those who are in the midst of a crime spree involving less serious offenses and have failed at diversion and probation? How do we know whether a jurisdiction is efficiently allocating correctional resources to maximize public safety or perhaps is spending too much or too little on corrections?
4. Should the inquiry at parole solely be a forward-looking one which assesses future risk, as is the case in Michigan due to reforms a few years ago, or should paroling agencies also consider whether further punishment is warranted?
5. What are the merits of concurrent versus consecutive sentences in light of the Lara case that was argued before the Supreme Court in March? How does this relate to whether the primary goal of incarceration is punishment, incapacitation, or rehabilitation?

Featuring:
---Dr. Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Co-Director of Reasearch, The Sentencing Project
--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
--[Moderator] Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53962873Tue, 16 May 2023 19:30:35 +0000The Federalist SocietyFollowing a surge in many types of violent crime in 2020 and 2021 that has only recently begun to ebb in some places, many state legislatures, especially in southern states, have passed or are considering policies that are designed to result in longer...Following a surge in many types of violent crime in 2020 and 2021 that has only recently begun to ebb in some places, many state legislatures, especially in southern states, have passed or are considering policies that are designed to result in longer periods behind bars for those convicted of serious violent crimes. Policy proposals include imposing or lengthening mandatory minimums, removing parole eligibility in certain cases, and requiring that a high percentage of the sentence be served behind bars (often referred to as “truth-in-sentencing”). However, there are also countervailing trends in states like California. Determining the right approach to sentencing and time served raises several questions:

1. What is the proper balance between uniformity and discretion and the degree of influence exercised by legislators versus prosecutors and judges?
2. To what degree is the focus on the length of the sentence or period of incarceration, as opposed to certainty that a significant percentage of the sentence, whatever its length, be served behind bars?
3. Given that elderly individuals have the lowest recidivism rates, would we be shortchanging public safety if we allocate too much prison space to those who committed a heinous crime decades ago as opposed to those who are in the midst of a crime spree involving less serious offenses and have failed at diversion and probation? How do we know whether a jurisdiction is efficiently allocating correctional resources to maximize public safety or perhaps is spending too much or too little on corrections?
4. Should the inquiry at parole solely be a forward-looking one which assesses future risk, as is the case in Michigan due to reforms a few years ago, or should paroling agencies also consider whether further punishment is warranted?
5. What are the merits of concurrent versus consecutive sentences in light of the Lara case that was argued before the Supreme Court in March? How does this relate to whether the primary goal of incarceration is punishment, incapacitation, or rehabilitation?

Featuring:
---Dr. Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Co-Director of Reasearch, The Sentencing Project
--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
--[Moderator] Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime]]>3708criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-ltl-management-s-chapter-11-bankruptcy--53908596
The case began in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Chief Judge Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL in February 2022 holding that LTL’s filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed and narrowly held in favor of claimants.

Hours later, LTL once again filed for Chapter 11 protection; the new filing includes an $8.9 billion settlement offer. Some – including the U.S. Department of Justice’s Trustee Program – continue to argue that J&J is misusing bankruptcy law through LTL, but others think the massive settlement is in the best interest of claimants. Both LTL and parent J&J reject that its bankruptcy filing is illegitimate, illegal, or in bad faith.

This webinar served as a second installment of the February 16, 2023 webinar titled Chapter 11 Bankruptcy & Mass Torts: A Review of the Third Circuit’s LTL Opinion with Professors Lindsey Simon and Tony Casey.

Featuring:
--Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School
--Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law
--Mikal C. Watts, Partner, Watts Guerra LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53908596Thu, 11 May 2023 16:30:38 +0000The Federalist SocietyLTL Management LLC (LTL) is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) that was established in 2021 to hold and manage claims related to a mass tort alleging that J&J’s talc-based baby powder caused many cases of ovarian cancer, mesothelioma,...
The case began in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Chief Judge Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL in February 2022 holding that LTL’s filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed and narrowly held in favor of claimants.

Hours later, LTL once again filed for Chapter 11 protection; the new filing includes an $8.9 billion settlement offer. Some – including the U.S. Department of Justice’s Trustee Program – continue to argue that J&J is misusing bankruptcy law through LTL, but others think the massive settlement is in the best interest of claimants. Both LTL and parent J&J reject that its bankruptcy filing is illegitimate, illegal, or in bad faith.

This webinar served as a second installment of the February 16, 2023 webinar titled Chapter 11 Bankruptcy & Mass Torts: A Review of the Third Circuit’s LTL Opinion with Professors Lindsey Simon and Tony Casey.

Featuring:
--Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School
--Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law
--Mikal C. Watts, Partner, Watts Guerra LLP]]>3611litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/american-trade-law-in-a-post-wto-appellate-body-world--53824374
How did the Appellate Body constrain U.S. laws pre-2019? Why did the U.S. choose to block nominations to the Appellate Body and what are the prospects that the Appellate Body returns? And if the Appellate Body does not return, how will this impact U.S. trade and trade-related laws? Join us for a panel where two leading experts on trade law and policy will discuss these issues.

Featuring:
--Jamieson Greer, Partner, King & Spalding
--David Ross, Partner, WilmerHale
--Moderator: Trevor R. Jones, JD Candidate, Harvard Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53824374Thu, 11 May 2023 16:29:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFor decades, the WTO Appellate Body regularly ruled that American laws violated the various WTO treaties. This forced Congress to rewrite WTO non-compliant statutes and altered U.S. policy on issues related to trade, the environment, and taxes -...
How did the Appellate Body constrain U.S. laws pre-2019? Why did the U.S. choose to block nominations to the Appellate Body and what are the prospects that the Appellate Body returns? And if the Appellate Body does not return, how will this impact U.S. trade and trade-related laws? Join us for a panel where two leading experts on trade law and policy will discuss these issues.

Featuring:
--Jamieson Greer, Partner, King & Spalding
--David Ross, Partner, WilmerHale
--Moderator: Trevor R. Jones, JD Candidate, Harvard Law School
]]>3550cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-tyler-v-hennepin-county--53741204
Hennepin County foreclosed on Geraldine Tyler's home to cover her delinquent property taxes, selling the home for $40,000 and keeping the $25,000 surplus as profit. Tyler argues that the county cannot take the equity in her home and has asked the Supreme Court to declare the forfeiture of her home's equity an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. The county maintains that Tyler had time to pay her taxes and is not entitled to any refund.
The Supreme Court will consider whether the county’s actions violate the Takings Clause and whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than the debt plus interest, penalties, and costs is an excessive fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

After the oral argument, Christina Martin, Counsel of Record in the case for Pacific Legal Foundation, joined us to break down the proceedings.

Featuring:
--Christina Martin, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
--Moderator: Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53741204Thu, 04 May 2023 15:15:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Wednesday, April 26th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin County foreclosed on Geraldine Tyler's home to cover her delinquent property taxes, selling the home for $40,000 and keeping the $25,000...
Hennepin County foreclosed on Geraldine Tyler's home to cover her delinquent property taxes, selling the home for $40,000 and keeping the $25,000 surplus as profit. Tyler argues that the county cannot take the equity in her home and has asked the Supreme Court to declare the forfeiture of her home's equity an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. The county maintains that Tyler had time to pay her taxes and is not entitled to any refund.
The Supreme Court will consider whether the county’s actions violate the Takings Clause and whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than the debt plus interest, penalties, and costs is an excessive fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

After the oral argument, Christina Martin, Counsel of Record in the case for Pacific Legal Foundation, joined us to break down the proceedings.

Featuring:
--Christina Martin, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
--Moderator: Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>3351cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-diversity-lie-20-years-later--53837606
Professors Brian Fitzpatrick and Randall Kennedy joined us to consider these questions and more as we reflect on the 20th anniversary of Grutter v. Bollinger.

Featuring:
--Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law School
--Professor Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor, Harvard Law School
--[Moderator] Ted Frank, Director, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53837606Tue, 02 May 2023 16:00:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2003, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick published a piece titled "The Diversity Lie" in which he discussed the recently decided Grutter v. Bollinger case. Twenty years later, the Supreme Court is on the precipice of deciding two important affirmative...
Professors Brian Fitzpatrick and Randall Kennedy joined us to consider these questions and more as we reflect on the 20th anniversary of Grutter v. Bollinger.

Featuring:
--Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law School
--Professor Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor, Harvard Law School
--[Moderator] Ted Frank, Director, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute]]>3748affirmative actioncleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/answering-threats-to-taiwan-part-ii-understanding-the-military-dynamics-of-a-us-china-conflict--53652642
This recorded webinar features a robust discussion on one of the most pressing security challenges of our time.

Featuring:
--Col. Mark Cancian, (USMCR, ret.) Senior Adviser, International Security Program, CSISProf.
--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. Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Part I: Where does Law Matter]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53652642Fri, 21 Apr 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe announcement that the Taiwan President will visit the United States in early April has brought renewed attention to the potential conflict between the US and China over Taiwan. Additionally, some experts assert that the ongoing conflict between...
This recorded webinar features a robust discussion on one of the most pressing security challenges of our time.

Featuring:
--Col. Mark Cancian, (USMCR, ret.) Senior Adviser, International Security Program, CSISProf.
--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. Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Part I: Where does Law Matter]]>3702international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-counterman-v-colorado--53652187
The facts of the case that poses this question for the Court, Counterman v. Colorado, are as follows. Billy Raymond Counterman was convicted and sentenced to four-and-a-half years in the state of Colorado for stalking a local female musician. According to Colorado Law, stalking entails “mak[ing] any form of communication with another person … in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress.”
Over the course of two years, Counterman sent the woman direct messages on Facebook in which he suggested that he had seen her while driving and made comments such as “Die” and “(expletive) off permanently.” The woman told a family member that she was “extremely scared” after receiving these messages.

Lower courts in Colorado upheld Counterman’s conviction, ruling that the appropriate test for whether Counterman’s statements qualified as a “true threat,” was whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence. The question now comes before the Court as to whether that “reasonable person” test is correct, or whether intent must be established.

In this recorded Teleforum we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the day after this case is heard.

Featuring:
--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53652187Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:00:01 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn April 19, 2023, the Court considered a question of free speech and criminal law: whether, in order for a statement to be categorized as a "true threat" and thus not protected under a right to free speech, the speaker must subjectively know or...
The facts of the case that poses this question for the Court, Counterman v. Colorado, are as follows. Billy Raymond Counterman was convicted and sentenced to four-and-a-half years in the state of Colorado for stalking a local female musician. According to Colorado Law, stalking entails “mak[ing] any form of communication with another person … in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress.”
Over the course of two years, Counterman sent the woman direct messages on Facebook in which he suggested that he had seen her while driving and made comments such as “Die” and “(expletive) off permanently.” The woman told a family member that she was “extremely scared” after receiving these messages.

Lower courts in Colorado upheld Counterman’s conviction, ruling that the appropriate test for whether Counterman’s statements qualified as a “true threat,” was whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence. The question now comes before the Court as to whether that “reasonable person” test is correct, or whether intent must be established.

In this recorded Teleforum we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the day after this case is heard.

Featuring:
--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation]]>1199criminal law & procedure,free speech & election law,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-april-2023--53585182

• Slack Technologies v. Pirani (April 17) - Securities, Financial Services; Whether, to bring a securities lawsuit alleging misstatements in a registration statement, a plaintiff must plead and show that he bought shares registered under the allegedly misleading statement.
• US ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. & United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway [Consolidated] (April 18) - Financial Services; Whether and when a defendant’s subjective knowledge about whether its conduct was legal is relevant to whether it “knowingly” submitted false claims for payment to the government or “knowingly” made false statements in support of such claims in violation of the False Claims Act.
• Groff v. Dejoy (April 18) - Labor, Religious Liberties; Whether to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, on the accommodations that employers must provide for their employees’ religious practices.
• Counterman v. Colorado (April 19) - Free Speech; To determine whether statements are “true threats” that are not protected by the Constitution, should courts apply an objective test that considers whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence, or instead a subjective test that requires prosecutors to show that the speaker intended to make a threat?
• Lac du Flambeua Band v. Coughlin (April 24) - Tribal Law; Whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.
• Tyler v. Hennepin County (April 26) - Property Rights; Whether the foreclosure on and sale of a home that was worth $25,000 more than the owner owed in taxes violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owners.

Featuring:
--Thomas F. Gede, Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
--Sharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLC
--Brian Hauss, Senior Staff Attorney, Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, ACLU
--Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Moderator: Anastasia P. Boden, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53585182Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. - Slack Technologies v. Pirani (April 17) - Securities, Financial Services;...

• Slack Technologies v. Pirani (April 17) - Securities, Financial Services; Whether, to bring a securities lawsuit alleging misstatements in a registration statement, a plaintiff must plead and show that he bought shares registered under the allegedly misleading statement.
• US ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. & United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway [Consolidated] (April 18) - Financial Services; Whether and when a defendant’s subjective knowledge about whether its conduct was legal is relevant to whether it “knowingly” submitted false claims for payment to the government or “knowingly” made false statements in support of such claims in violation of the False Claims Act.
• Groff v. Dejoy (April 18) - Labor, Religious Liberties; Whether to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, on the accommodations that employers must provide for their employees’ religious practices.
• Counterman v. Colorado (April 19) - Free Speech; To determine whether statements are “true threats” that are not protected by the Constitution, should courts apply an objective test that considers whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence, or instead a subjective test that requires prosecutors to show that the speaker intended to make a threat?
• Lac du Flambeua Band v. Coughlin (April 24) - Tribal Law; Whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.
• Tyler v. Hennepin County (April 26) - Property Rights; Whether the foreclosure on and sale of a home that was worth $25,000 more than the owner owed in taxes violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owners.

Featuring:
--Thomas F. Gede, Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
--Sharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLC
--Brian Hauss, Senior Staff Attorney, Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, ACLU
--Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Moderator: Anastasia P. Boden, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute]]>5034cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-tyler-v-hennepin-county--53582283
Minnesota, along with thirteen other states, authorize various government agencies to satisfy assorted government debts associated with real property by confiscating all title and equity in an owner’s property. Equity means the value in a piece of property beyond the encumbering debt. No one disputes the government’s ability to forfeit property to cover debts but Ms. Tyler argues the county cannot take the equity in her home.

Tyler asks the United States Supreme Court to rule Hennepin County’s forfeiture of the equity in her home an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. However, the County argues that Tyler failed to pay her property taxes for five years, she had time to pay those taxes, and therefore the County was not required to refund Tyler any money from forfeiting her house to pay the property taxes.

Nancie Marzulla, who filed an amicus brief with the Atlantic Legal Foundation on behalf of the petitioner’s position, and John Bursch, who filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Meisner v. Hall asserting the respondent’s position in Tyler joined us to discuss this important case.

Featuring:
--Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law
--John Bursch, Founder, Bursch Law PLLC
--Moderator: Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53582283Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:35:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyGeraldine Tyler, a ninety-three-year-old homeowner, owed Hennepin County, Minnesota, nearly $12,700 in delinquent property taxes, plus interest, penalties, and costs. To cover her debt, the County foreclosed on her home and sold it for $40,000....
Minnesota, along with thirteen other states, authorize various government agencies to satisfy assorted government debts associated with real property by confiscating all title and equity in an owner’s property. Equity means the value in a piece of property beyond the encumbering debt. No one disputes the government’s ability to forfeit property to cover debts but Ms. Tyler argues the county cannot take the equity in her home.

Tyler asks the United States Supreme Court to rule Hennepin County’s forfeiture of the equity in her home an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. However, the County argues that Tyler failed to pay her property taxes for five years, she had time to pay those taxes, and therefore the County was not required to refund Tyler any money from forfeiting her house to pay the property taxes.

Nancie Marzulla, who filed an amicus brief with the Atlantic Legal Foundation on behalf of the petitioner’s position, and John Bursch, who filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Meisner v. Hall asserting the respondent’s position in Tyler joined us to discuss this important case.

Featuring:
--Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law
--John Bursch, Founder, Bursch Law PLLC
--Moderator: Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>3596cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-groff-v-dejoy--53628654
Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. Although his sabbath-taking was not a problem at the beginning of his tenure with the USPS, following a 2013 agreement with Amazon, USPS began to provide service on Sundays and holidays. This meant that postal workers now had to work Sundays. Initially, Groff was able to avoid working Sundays by trading shifts with co-workers, but that eventually became untenable as co-workers were not willing or available to trade, resulting in Groff being scheduled for Sunday shifts he could not work due to his convictions. Following disciplinary action for missed shifts, and facing termination, Groff chose to resign. He sued USPS for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices as required by Title VII. The Third Circuit, following Hardison, ruled in favor of USPS, citing as sufficient to constitute the “undue hardship” test the burden placed on Groff’s coworkers who had to take more Sunday shifts and lessened workplace morale.

Groff appealed, and SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the case on April 18, 2023. In this Courthouse Steps webinar where we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went in the case the same day argument occurred.

Featuring:
--Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53628654Tue, 18 Apr 2023 20:00:15 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Groff v. Dejoy the Court was set to address two issues concerning the protections provided employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. The Court was considering whether to overrule the...
Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. Although his sabbath-taking was not a problem at the beginning of his tenure with the USPS, following a 2013 agreement with Amazon, USPS began to provide service on Sundays and holidays. This meant that postal workers now had to work Sundays. Initially, Groff was able to avoid working Sundays by trading shifts with co-workers, but that eventually became untenable as co-workers were not willing or available to trade, resulting in Groff being scheduled for Sunday shifts he could not work due to his convictions. Following disciplinary action for missed shifts, and facing termination, Groff chose to resign. He sued USPS for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices as required by Title VII. The Third Circuit, following Hardison, ruled in favor of USPS, citing as sufficient to constitute the “undue hardship” test the burden placed on Groff’s coworkers who had to take more Sunday shifts and lessened workplace morale.

Groff appealed, and SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the case on April 18, 2023. In this Courthouse Steps webinar where we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went in the case the same day argument occurred.

Featuring:
--Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
]]>3604labor & employment law,religious liberties,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-gonzalez-v-trevino-when-the-courts-wrestle-with-qualified-immunity--53584479
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss, finding Appellee failed to establish a violation of her constitutional rights. Notable dissents were issued by Judges Oldham (from the panel opinion) and Ho (from the denial of en banc review). Anya Bidwell and the Institute for Justice have petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Please join us as Ms. Bidwell discusses qualified immunity, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53584479Thu, 13 Apr 2023 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyGonzalez v. Trevino involves an alleged retaliatory conspiracy of city officials from Castle Hills, Texas to arrest Sylvia Gonzalez—a 72-year-old councilwoman—for spearheading a nonbinding petition criticizing the city’s manager. Gonzalez acknowledges...
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss, finding Appellee failed to establish a violation of her constitutional rights. Notable dissents were issued by Judges Oldham (from the panel opinion) and Ho (from the denial of en banc review). Anya Bidwell and the Institute for Justice have petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Please join us as Ms. Bidwell discusses qualified immunity, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino.]]>3545civil rightscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/public-defenders-and-political-advocacy-what-is-a-public-defender-s-role--53823024
In this Teleforum former public defenders discussed these questions on the role of public defenders in political advocacy.

Feauring:
--Maud Maron, Interim Executive Director, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism
--Tiffany Roberts, Public Policy Director, Southern Center for Human Rights
--[Moderator] Matthew Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion & Senior Lecturer in Law, Emory University School of Law
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53823024Wed, 05 Apr 2023 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOver the past several years, a debate has erupted within the world of indigent defense: to what degree is it appropriate or indeed vital for public defenders to be involved in political advocacy? Some contend such advocacy is outside the role and...
In this Teleforum former public defenders discussed these questions on the role of public defenders in political advocacy.

Feauring:
--Maud Maron, Interim Executive Director, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism
--Tiffany Roberts, Public Policy Director, Southern Center for Human Rights
--[Moderator] Matthew Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion & Senior Lecturer in Law, Emory University School of Law
]]>3610criminal law & procedure,politicscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-amgen-inc-v-sanofi--53452462
The Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 27, 2023. Specifically at issue was "whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specifications teach those skilled in the art to 'make and use' the claimed invention, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art 'to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments' without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial 'time and effort.'"

Robert Rando, an intellectual property attorney who filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to break down the arguments.

Featuring:
--Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53452462Tue, 04 Apr 2023 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted cert in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, a patent infringement case that involves the application of the statutory enablement requirement of Section 112 of the patent laws to what is referred to as a "genus claim"...
The Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 27, 2023. Specifically at issue was "whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specifications teach those skilled in the art to 'make and use' the claimed invention, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art 'to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments' without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial 'time and effort.'"

Robert Rando, an intellectual property attorney who filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to break down the arguments.

Featuring:
--Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP]]>2358intellectual propertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/abraham-accords-promise-potential-risk-reality--53433832As Indonesia, Somalia, Niger, and Mauritania may be next to join the Abraham Accords, what interests unify these countries on Accord agreement? What will be the impact of Saudi Arabia’s alignment with Iran? What are the balance of power dynamics for the Iran-concerned Accord countries of Israel, Bahrain, UAE? What binds signatories to the Accords as regional political pressures mount?

Discussants will assess the impact of the normalization of relationships they have evolved in the two and a half years since Accords were negotiated. Cultural shifts are already reported after two years of active Accords with Hebrew frequently spoken on the streets of Dubai. Trade has flourished. Flights and overflights are routine. But the United States’ role has shifted for a variety of reasons. Is America’s leadership critical to salutary Accord developments?

Featuring:
--David P. Goldman, President, Macrostrategy LLC
--Hon. Brian Hook, Founder, Latitude, LLC
--Prof. Bernard Haykel, Professor of Near Eastern Studies & Director of the Institute for Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, Princeton University
--Moderator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53433832Mon, 03 Apr 2023 20:40:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAs Indonesia, Somalia, Niger, and Mauritania may be next to join the Abraham Accords, what interests unify these countries on Accord agreement? What will be the impact of Saudi Arabia’s alignment with Iran? What are the balance of power dynamics for...As Indonesia, Somalia, Niger, and Mauritania may be next to join the Abraham Accords, what interests unify these countries on Accord agreement? What will be the impact of Saudi Arabia’s alignment with Iran? What are the balance of power dynamics for the Iran-concerned Accord countries of Israel, Bahrain, UAE? What binds signatories to the Accords as regional political pressures mount?

Discussants will assess the impact of the normalization of relationships they have evolved in the two and a half years since Accords were negotiated. Cultural shifts are already reported after two years of active Accords with Hebrew frequently spoken on the streets of Dubai. Trade has flourished. Flights and overflights are routine. But the United States’ role has shifted for a variety of reasons. Is America’s leadership critical to salutary Accord developments?

Featuring:
--David P. Goldman, President, Macrostrategy LLC
--Hon. Brian Hook, Founder, Latitude, LLC
--Prof. Bernard Haykel, Professor of Near Eastern Studies & Director of the Institute for Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, Princeton University
--Moderator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3612cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-combo-smith-v-united-states-samia-v-united-states-cases-on-criminal-law-procedure--53431247
On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. Two issues were presented to the Court by this case.

• One, whether, when there are multiple charges associated with a trial, lack of venue as to one count requires vacatur of the convictions for other counts?
• Two, what is the proper remedy when someone is tried in an improper venue? Is the government’s failure to prove venue equal to an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, or can the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue?

The next day, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. In it, the Court considered whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

In this recorded webinar, we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court in these two cases, united by the Court before which they are set to be argued and the fact they pose questions of proper procedure in criminal cases.

Featuring:
--Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53431247Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn this two-for-one Teleforum, we covered two cases with questions concerning criminal law and procedure that are set to be argued before the Court. On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. Two issues were...
On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. Two issues were presented to the Court by this case.

• One, whether, when there are multiple charges associated with a trial, lack of venue as to one count requires vacatur of the convictions for other counts?
• Two, what is the proper remedy when someone is tried in an improper venue? Is the government’s failure to prove venue equal to an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, or can the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue?

The next day, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. In it, the Court considered whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

In this recorded webinar, we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court in these two cases, united by the Court before which they are set to be argued and the fact they pose questions of proper procedure in criminal cases.

Featuring:
--Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP]]>2448criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-jack-daniel-s-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc--53382696
Following oral arguments in the case, IP expert Adam Mathews joined us to break down the case and answer audience questions.

Featuring:
--Adam Mathews, State Representative, Ohio, and Attorney, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53382696Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:30:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the Supreme Court is considering "Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or...
Following oral arguments in the case, IP expert Adam Mathews joined us to break down the case and answer audience questions.

Featuring:
--Adam Mathews, State Representative, Ohio, and Attorney, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge]]>1707intellectual property,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-we-heed-pleas-for-plea-bargaining-reform--53431196Although a right to trial is enshrined in the American Constitution, practically the nation’s criminal justice system now resolves almost all cases through plea bargaining. This has raised many questions, including whether innocent people are effectively coerced into pleading guilty, whether similarly situated defendants are treated equally, and whether there is enough transparency to evaluate the system’s effectiveness and correct injustices.
In February 2023, a task force assembled by the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association released a report that made numerous recommendations for changing current policy and practice on plea bargaining. Amid a system struggling with COVID-era backlogs and rates of serious crimes that largely remain above 2019 levels, are there ways to bolster the effective availability of the right to trial without jeopardizing public safety or requiring an unrealistic increase in system capacity?

Featuring:
--Clark Niely, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute
--Kent Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney, Pinal County, Arizona
--[Moderator] Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53431196Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlthough a right to trial is enshrined in the American Constitution, practically the nation’s criminal justice system now resolves almost all cases through plea bargaining. This has raised many questions, including whether innocent people are...Although a right to trial is enshrined in the American Constitution, practically the nation’s criminal justice system now resolves almost all cases through plea bargaining. This has raised many questions, including whether innocent people are effectively coerced into pleading guilty, whether similarly situated defendants are treated equally, and whether there is enough transparency to evaluate the system’s effectiveness and correct injustices.
In February 2023, a task force assembled by the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association released a report that made numerous recommendations for changing current policy and practice on plea bargaining. Amid a system struggling with COVID-era backlogs and rates of serious crimes that largely remain above 2019 levels, are there ways to bolster the effective availability of the right to trial without jeopardizing public safety or requiring an unrealistic increase in system capacity?

Featuring:
--Clark Niely, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute
--Kent Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney, Pinal County, Arizona
--[Moderator] Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice
]]>3639criminal law & procedurecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-the-stop-woke-act-cases--53446429
The bill seeks to “protect individual freedoms and prevent discrimination in the workplace and in public schools.” While the bill explicitly authorizes “age-appropriate” classroom discussion of topics such as sexism, slavery, and racial discrimination, it prohibits instruction meant to “indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of individual freedom or state academic standards.” The bill went into effect on July 1, 2022, and it places new restrictions on Florida’s public schools, colleges, universities, and corporations.

Proponents of the bill argue that aspects of progressive ideology – often referred to as wokeness – are being aggressively pushed on students, parents, and employees, and the effect is tantamount to ideological oppression and indoctrination. Opponents of the bill say that the Stop WOKE Act infringes upon freedom of speech and thought. Several opponents – including prominent organizations like the ACLU and FIRE – have taken to the courts to block or pare back the bill’s influence.

Ryan Newman serves as General Counsel to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and he is responsible for driving Florida’s litigation defense of the Stop WOKE Act in cases such as Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, Novoa v. Diaz, and Honeyfund.com Inc. v. DeSantis.

Featuring:
--Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53446429Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:00:07 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2022, the Florida Legislature passed a bill titled the Individual Freedom Act. The bill is better known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act, or the Stop WOKE Act, and it has become a cultural flashpoint across the country. The bill...
The bill seeks to “protect individual freedoms and prevent discrimination in the workplace and in public schools.” While the bill explicitly authorizes “age-appropriate” classroom discussion of topics such as sexism, slavery, and racial discrimination, it prohibits instruction meant to “indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of individual freedom or state academic standards.” The bill went into effect on July 1, 2022, and it places new restrictions on Florida’s public schools, colleges, universities, and corporations.

Proponents of the bill argue that aspects of progressive ideology – often referred to as wokeness – are being aggressively pushed on students, parents, and employees, and the effect is tantamount to ideological oppression and indoctrination. Opponents of the bill say that the Stop WOKE Act infringes upon freedom of speech and thought. Several opponents – including prominent organizations like the ACLU and FIRE – have taken to the courts to block or pare back the bill’s influence.

Ryan Newman serves as General Counsel to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and he is responsible for driving Florida’s litigation defense of the Stop WOKE Act in cases such as Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, Novoa v. Diaz, and Honeyfund.com Inc. v. DeSantis.

Featuring:
--Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis]]>3315civil rights,culture,first amendment,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-states-v-hansen--53453489
Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts.

Hansen follows on the heels of another case with similar questions. Back in 2020, in United States v. Sinening-Smith, SCOTUS reversed a Ninth Circuit Court decision that attempted to strike down the encouragement provision on the grounds the decision attempted to address an issue that was outside of the issue before the court. Hansen now brings those same constitutional issues to the fore.

In this Courthouse Steps webinar, we will broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the same day it is argued.

Featuring:
--Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53453489Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:48 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn Monday, March 27, 2023 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Hansen. At issue in Hansen is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), a federal criminal statute that prohibits encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration...
Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts.

Hansen follows on the heels of another case with similar questions. Back in 2020, in United States v. Sinening-Smith, SCOTUS reversed a Ninth Circuit Court decision that attempted to strike down the encouragement provision on the grounds the decision attempted to address an issue that was outside of the issue before the court. Hansen now brings those same constitutional issues to the fore.

In this Courthouse Steps webinar, we will broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the same day it is argued.

Featuring:
--Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
]]>3615civil rights,criminal law & procedure,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-apache-stronghold-v-united-states-goes-en-banc-at-the-ninth-circuit--53365481
In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a trade of land between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. Resolution Copper gave the government 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands. In exchange, the Government gave Resolution Copper 2,400 acres containing the third largest copper deposit in the world.

Within the 2,400-acre tract of land is Chi’chil Bildagoteel, or “Oak Flat”, a place of central spiritual importance to the Western Apache. It is the direct corridor to their Creator and the site of numerous religious ceremonies. If Resolution Copper is given the land, the religious site will be destroyed and turned into a mine.

Apache Stronghold sued to prohibit the land trade under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause, and under a theory that the trade violates the Government’s trust obligation to the Apaches. The United States argued that pursuant to its constitutional authority over the territories and existing caselaw that the trade was lawful.
The District Court rejected a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. And the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc this month.

Apache Stronghold again presses its three claims. Centrally, it argues that the United States has substantially burdened the Apaches’ religious exercise by authorizing the transfer and destruction of Oak Flat—rendering their religious exercise impossible.

The United States argues a line of precedent—culminating in Employment Division v. Smith—bar Apache Stronghold’s claims. The Government particularly relies on Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association, which permitted the U.S. Forest Service to develop a road through government land that would traverse a tribal holy site, stating, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” The United States argues that RFRA and the remainder of Apache Stronghold’s claims do not undermine the holding in Lyng.
At stake is a religious site of central importance to a native tribe that cannot be replaced and development of the third largest copper deposit in the world.

In this recorded webinar, an excellent debate team discuss this en banc hearing. On behalf of Apache Stronghold, Luke Goodrich, VP and Senior Counsel for Becket, who is serving as lead counsel for Apache Stronghold. And defending the United States’ position, Anthony J. Ferate, who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Support of Appellee United States.

Featuring:
--Luke Goodrich, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Becket
--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53365481Fri, 24 Mar 2023 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis case presents an intersection between Native Americans’ free exercise rights and the Government’s power to regulate its territories. In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a...
In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a trade of land between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. Resolution Copper gave the government 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands. In exchange, the Government gave Resolution Copper 2,400 acres containing the third largest copper deposit in the world.

Within the 2,400-acre tract of land is Chi’chil Bildagoteel, or “Oak Flat”, a place of central spiritual importance to the Western Apache. It is the direct corridor to their Creator and the site of numerous religious ceremonies. If Resolution Copper is given the land, the religious site will be destroyed and turned into a mine.

Apache Stronghold sued to prohibit the land trade under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause, and under a theory that the trade violates the Government’s trust obligation to the Apaches. The United States argued that pursuant to its constitutional authority over the territories and existing caselaw that the trade was lawful.
The District Court rejected a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. And the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc this month.

Apache Stronghold again presses its three claims. Centrally, it argues that the United States has substantially burdened the Apaches’ religious exercise by authorizing the transfer and destruction of Oak Flat—rendering their religious exercise impossible.

The United States argues a line of precedent—culminating in Employment Division v. Smith—bar Apache Stronghold’s claims. The Government particularly relies on Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association, which permitted the U.S. Forest Service to develop a road through government land that would traverse a tribal holy site, stating, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” The United States argues that RFRA and the remainder of Apache Stronghold’s claims do not undermine the holding in Lyng.
At stake is a religious site of central importance to a native tribe that cannot be replaced and development of the third largest copper deposit in the world.

In this recorded webinar, an excellent debate team discuss this en banc hearing. On behalf of Apache Stronghold, Luke Goodrich, VP and Senior Counsel for Becket, who is serving as lead counsel for Apache Stronghold. And defending the United States’ position, Anthony J. Ferate, who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Support of Appellee United States.

Featuring:
--Luke Goodrich, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Becket
--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts
]]>3573cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-march-2023--53328175Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

• Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic Intl. Inc. (March 21) - Intellectual Property, International Law; Whether the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark can bring a lawsuit for damages for infringement overseas.
• Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (March 21) - Litigation, E Commerce; Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.
• Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (March 22) - Intellectual Property; Whether and when trademark law prohibits a spoof of a company’s brand.
• Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (March 27) - Intellectual Property, Medicine; When a patent applicant must provide a description of its invention that would enable a “skilled artisan” to make and use the invention, what must the applicant show to meet that requirement?
• Smith v. United States (March 27) - Criminal Law; What is the proper remedy – acquittal or a new trial – when an appeals court concludes that one of the counts on which a defendant was convicted was tried in the wrong place?
• Lora v. United States (March 28) - Criminal Law; Whether federal criminal sentencing laws require a New York man convicted for his role in a drug-trafficking murder to be sentenced to consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
• Samia v. United States (March 29) - Criminal Law; Whether prosecutors violated a defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment when they admitted a confession from one of his co-defendants, redacted so that it did not use the defendant’s name.

Featuring:
--Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law
--Prof. Stephen Ware, Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law
--Robert Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP
--Adam Mathews, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney, Faurecia
--Robert "Bob" McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
--Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53328175Thu, 16 Mar 2023 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. - Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic Intl. Inc. (March 21) - Intellectual Property,...Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

• Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic Intl. Inc. (March 21) - Intellectual Property, International Law; Whether the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark can bring a lawsuit for damages for infringement overseas.
• Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (March 21) - Litigation, E Commerce; Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.
• Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (March 22) - Intellectual Property; Whether and when trademark law prohibits a spoof of a company’s brand.
• Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (March 27) - Intellectual Property, Medicine; When a patent applicant must provide a description of its invention that would enable a “skilled artisan” to make and use the invention, what must the applicant show to meet that requirement?
• Smith v. United States (March 27) - Criminal Law; What is the proper remedy – acquittal or a new trial – when an appeals court concludes that one of the counts on which a defendant was convicted was tried in the wrong place?
• Lora v. United States (March 28) - Criminal Law; Whether federal criminal sentencing laws require a New York man convicted for his role in a drug-trafficking murder to be sentenced to consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
• Samia v. United States (March 29) - Criminal Law; Whether prosecutors violated a defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment when they admitted a confession from one of his co-defendants, redacted so that it did not use the defendant’s name.

Featuring:
--Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law
--Prof. Stephen Ware, Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law
--Robert Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP
--Adam Mathews, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney, Faurecia
--Robert "Bob" McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
--Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation]]>5106cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-crypto-legislation-coming--53225161
The House Financial Services Committee has a new Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion chaired by Congressman French Hill (R-AR). Chairman Hill will join us for a keynote presentation, followed by an expert panel discussion. Among other questions, the webinar will consider: Will there be crypto legislation? What might it and what should it provide or not provide? What will be the most contentious issues? What related oversight should Congress provide?

J.C. Boggs will moderate the program and the panel will feature Dina Ellis Rochkind, Alexandra Harrison Gaiser, Patrick McCarty, and Patrick Daugherty.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53225161Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:59:44 +0000The Federalist SocietyAlong with the "crypto crackdown" by financial regulators in the wake of huge cryptocurrency losses and bankruptcies, Congress is discussing crypto legislation. The House Financial Services Committee has a new Subcommittee on Digital Assets,...
The House Financial Services Committee has a new Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion chaired by Congressman French Hill (R-AR). Chairman Hill will join us for a keynote presentation, followed by an expert panel discussion. Among other questions, the webinar will consider: Will there be crypto legislation? What might it and what should it provide or not provide? What will be the most contentious issues? What related oversight should Congress provide?

J.C. Boggs will moderate the program and the panel will feature Dina Ellis Rochkind, Alexandra Harrison Gaiser, Patrick McCarty, and Patrick Daugherty.]]>5158cryptocurrency,financial servicescleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-camp-lejeune-justice-act-what-happens-next--53284002
The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 – one section of the larger PACT Act – was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 10, 2022. The law provides veterans who served on Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 with two years to bring claims in the Eastern District of North Carolina related to this toxic water exposure. Over 15,000 claims have already been filed and some news outlets have suggested that there could be as many as 500,000 CLJA claims.

Among many interesting topics presented by these claims are fees. Personal injury law firms stand ready to collect billions. The American Tort Reform Association estimates that firms have spent more than $41 million on targeted advertisements. However, there is some debate about if a fee cap is in place. A 2021 version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act limited attorneys’ fees to between 20 and 25%, but the 2022 version does not contain such a provision. While some firms are prepared to charge up to 40%, others think the Federal Tort Claims Act will cover the Camp Lejeune cases and limit fees to 20% of claimant recovery.

In this recorded webinar, legal experts provide an update and a discussion of the many issues associated with the large scale litigation.

Featuring:
--Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
--Prof. Paul Figley, Professor of Legal Rhetoric, American University Washington College of Law
--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53284002Mon, 13 Mar 2023 17:00:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 1982, the U.S. Marine Corps discovered that one quarter of the water wells on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has estimated that as many as one...
The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 – one section of the larger PACT Act – was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 10, 2022. The law provides veterans who served on Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 with two years to bring claims in the Eastern District of North Carolina related to this toxic water exposure. Over 15,000 claims have already been filed and some news outlets have suggested that there could be as many as 500,000 CLJA claims.

Among many interesting topics presented by these claims are fees. Personal injury law firms stand ready to collect billions. The American Tort Reform Association estimates that firms have spent more than $41 million on targeted advertisements. However, there is some debate about if a fee cap is in place. A 2021 version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act limited attorneys’ fees to between 20 and 25%, but the 2022 version does not contain such a provision. While some firms are prepared to charge up to 40%, others think the Federal Tort Claims Act will cover the Camp Lejeune cases and limit fees to 20% of claimant recovery.

In this recorded webinar, legal experts provide an update and a discussion of the many issues associated with the large scale litigation.

Featuring:
--Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
--Prof. Paul Figley, Professor of Legal Rhetoric, American University Washington College of Law
--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman]]>3770litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sweet-v-cardona-the-administration-s-other-student-loan-cancellation-program--53196690
Less well known—but equally significant—is the Department’s other loan-cancellation program. This program is being accomplished through settlement of a nationwide APA class-action that was brought solely to compel the Department to restart lawful adjudications of “borrower-defense” claims. Instead of defending against this limited claim, the Biden Administration has instead entered a settlement agreement that dispenses with adjudication and automatically cancels billions in loans for hundreds of thousands of debtors. The Department claims it has authority for this blanket loan-cancellation program under the Higher Education Act—a claim that would apply to all loans even outside of litigation. A federal district court approved the settlement in November, but several intervening educational institutions have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Is this settlement legal? Is it an example of the reemergence of the sue-and-settle practices of the Obama Administration? How does this case intersect with Nebraska and Brown? This recorded webinar features a discussion with Jesse Panuccio, who represents one of the appealing intervenors.

Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53196690Thu, 09 Mar 2023 18:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyPresident Biden has directed the Department of Education to implement a national program of blanket cancellation of federal student loans. The Department has complied by announcing two debt-cancellation programs. The first program—a plan to cancel...
Less well known—but equally significant—is the Department’s other loan-cancellation program. This program is being accomplished through settlement of a nationwide APA class-action that was brought solely to compel the Department to restart lawful adjudications of “borrower-defense” claims. Instead of defending against this limited claim, the Biden Administration has instead entered a settlement agreement that dispenses with adjudication and automatically cancels billions in loans for hundreds of thousands of debtors. The Department claims it has authority for this blanket loan-cancellation program under the Higher Education Act—a claim that would apply to all loans even outside of litigation. A federal district court approved the settlement in November, but several intervening educational institutions have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Is this settlement legal? Is it an example of the reemergence of the sue-and-settle practices of the Obama Administration? How does this case intersect with Nebraska and Brown? This recorded webinar features a discussion with Jesse Panuccio, who represents one of the appealing intervenors.

Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP]]>3647litigation,separation of powers,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/title-ix-and-the-major-questions-doctrine--53197288
In the past, Executive branch agencies have invoked Title IX to introduce many new rules and regulations. Some of these rules and regulations have faced significant opposition from inside and outside of government. Do elements of modern Title IX administration constitute a major question that Congress is best suited to consider? If so, how will this impact the future administration of Title IX regulations?

Join us as Jennifer Braceras and Professor Daniel Farber discuss the future of Title IX in the wake of West Virginia v. EPA.

Featuring:

Jennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center

Professor Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, Berkeley Law

[Moderator] Farnaz Farkish Thompson, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53197288Thu, 09 Mar 2023 16:00:39 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the major questions doctrine requires courts to, “expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” Some argue that the...
In the past, Executive branch agencies have invoked Title IX to introduce many new rules and regulations. Some of these rules and regulations have faced significant opposition from inside and outside of government. Do elements of modern Title IX administration constitute a major question that Congress is best suited to consider? If so, how will this impact the future administration of Title IX regulations?

Join us as Jennifer Braceras and Professor Daniel Farber discuss the future of Title IX in the wake of West Virginia v. EPA.

Featuring:

Jennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center

Professor Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, Berkeley Law

[Moderator] Farnaz Farkish Thompson, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP]]>3750civil rights,constitutioncleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-d-c-crime-bill-what-happens-next--53194452In November 2022, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) that significantly reformed the D.C. Criminal Code to “modernize and overhaul” the District’s criminal laws including a reduction in penalties for many violent offenses.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially vetoed the bill citing concerns about some of the changes, but the Council overrode her veto in early 2023. Because D.C. government is not autonomous from the federal government, the legislation requires Congressional approval.

The U.S. House voted to nullify the bill, and the Senate is slated to vote on whether to block the bill this week. Should the Senate vote to block the D.C. bill, it could be the first time in almost 3 decades that Congress has nullified a D.C. law.

If the Senate votes to nullify the law, the bill will go to President Biden to sign or to veto. While many had anticipated he would veto the resolution, President Biden indicated in a March 2 tweet that he would sign the resolution should it pass.

On March 6, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson wrote a letter to the Senate attempting to withdraw the legislation. Such a withdrawal has not been attempted before. The Senate is still slated to take the issue to a vote later this week.

As the Senate vote approaches, please join us for a webinar featuring an opening address from U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty, followed by a discussion of the bill and what may come next.

Opening Address Featuring:
--Hon. Bill Hagerty, United States Senator, Tennessee
Discussion Featuring:
--Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53194452Wed, 08 Mar 2023 15:30:34 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn November 2022, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) that significantly reformed the D.C. Criminal Code to “modernize and overhaul” the District’s criminal laws including a reduction in penalties...In November 2022, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) that significantly reformed the D.C. Criminal Code to “modernize and overhaul” the District’s criminal laws including a reduction in penalties for many violent offenses.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially vetoed the bill citing concerns about some of the changes, but the Council overrode her veto in early 2023. Because D.C. government is not autonomous from the federal government, the legislation requires Congressional approval.

The U.S. House voted to nullify the bill, and the Senate is slated to vote on whether to block the bill this week. Should the Senate vote to block the D.C. bill, it could be the first time in almost 3 decades that Congress has nullified a D.C. law.

If the Senate votes to nullify the law, the bill will go to President Biden to sign or to veto. While many had anticipated he would veto the resolution, President Biden indicated in a March 2 tweet that he would sign the resolution should it pass.

On March 6, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson wrote a letter to the Senate attempting to withdraw the legislation. Such a withdrawal has not been attempted before. The Senate is still slated to take the issue to a vote later this week.

As the Senate vote approaches, please join us for a webinar featuring an opening address from U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty, followed by a discussion of the bill and what may come next.

Opening Address Featuring:
--Hon. Bill Hagerty, United States Senator, Tennessee
Discussion Featuring:
--Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation
]]>3514criminal law & procedure,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/government-censorship-disinformation-and-scientific-consensus-a-litigation-update-on-missouri-v-biden-hoeg-v-newsom--53147931How are we to understand scientific consensus? Who is authorized to speak on behalf of doctors and scientists as a whole, and how do those who present themselves as messengers of the majority reach their material findings? In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, these questions, and others like them, have important consequences for the future of American science and medicine.

The complaint in Missouri v. Biden arises from the controversy surrounding the Great Barrington Declaration, a declaration written in October 2020 and authored by renowned epidemiologists criticizing contemporary, aggressive COVID-19 policies. Plaintiffs allege that the federal government coerced social media companies to silence opposing viewpoints under the pretense of halting “disinformation” and “misinformation” thereby violating the First Amendment.

Hoeg v. Newsom is born of similar allegations at the state level. On September 30, 2022, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 2098 that purports to rein in “disinformation” and “misinformation” about the COVID-19 virus and vaccines. The Bill states that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” Plaintiffs – all physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California – allege that the Bill violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by interfering with their ability to freely communicate to patients and dissent from mainstream viewpoints in their professional capacity as trained doctors.

Observers have noted that achieving scientific consensus on an emergent and politicized disease is very difficult. For example, the purported scientific consensus on masks, lockdowns, natural immunity, and various other COVID-related matters has remained in flux over the past three years. Some argue that government attempts to stifle debate are concerning and illustrate the purpose of the First Amendment.

Jenin Younes is Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) and represents plaintiffs in both cases. In this recorded webinar Jenin delivers updates on these cases and discusses the ongoing power struggle over the dissemination of medical information.

Featuring:
--Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--[Moderator] Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53147931Thu, 02 Mar 2023 16:00:29 +0000The Federalist SocietyHow are we to understand scientific consensus? Who is authorized to speak on behalf of doctors and scientists as a whole, and how do those who present themselves as messengers of the majority reach their material findings? In the aftermath of the...How are we to understand scientific consensus? Who is authorized to speak on behalf of doctors and scientists as a whole, and how do those who present themselves as messengers of the majority reach their material findings? In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, these questions, and others like them, have important consequences for the future of American science and medicine.

The complaint in Missouri v. Biden arises from the controversy surrounding the Great Barrington Declaration, a declaration written in October 2020 and authored by renowned epidemiologists criticizing contemporary, aggressive COVID-19 policies. Plaintiffs allege that the federal government coerced social media companies to silence opposing viewpoints under the pretense of halting “disinformation” and “misinformation” thereby violating the First Amendment.

Hoeg v. Newsom is born of similar allegations at the state level. On September 30, 2022, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 2098 that purports to rein in “disinformation” and “misinformation” about the COVID-19 virus and vaccines. The Bill states that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” Plaintiffs – all physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California – allege that the Bill violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by interfering with their ability to freely communicate to patients and dissent from mainstream viewpoints in their professional capacity as trained doctors.

Observers have noted that achieving scientific consensus on an emergent and politicized disease is very difficult. For example, the purported scientific consensus on masks, lockdowns, natural immunity, and various other COVID-related matters has remained in flux over the past three years. Some argue that government attempts to stifle debate are concerning and illustrate the purpose of the First Amendment.

Jenin Younes is Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) and represents plaintiffs in both cases. In this recorded webinar Jenin delivers updates on these cases and discusses the ongoing power struggle over the dissemination of medical information.

Featuring:
--Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--[Moderator] Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance]]>3568first amendment,fourteenth amendment,litigation,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-role-of-the-modern-state-solicitor-general-current-and-former-sgs-weigh-in--52881990
Featuring:
--Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Ohio
--Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP; Former Solicitor General, West Virginia
--Ryan Park, Solicitor General, North Carolina
--Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; Former Solicitor General, Georgia]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52881990Tue, 28 Feb 2023 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThis virtual event featured a panel of current and former state solicitors general exploring and discussing how state SGs balance their duty to defend state sovereignty with different political priorities. There are some areas in which the states seem...
Featuring:
--Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Ohio
--Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP; Former Solicitor General, West Virginia
--Ryan Park, Solicitor General, North Carolina
--Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; Former Solicitor General, Georgia]]>3766federalism,federalism & separation of pow,state constitutions,state governmentscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-dept-of-ed-v-brown-biden-v-nebraska--53135592
In August 2022, the Biden Administration's Department of Education announced plans to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans for borrowers who qualified. In order to do this, the DOE relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the government to modify student loans, among other things, during a national emergency.

Both cases challenge this action. Biden v. Nebraska involves a challenge to the Executive action from six states who contend they will suffer direct harm based on a loss of tax revenue. In Department of Education v. Brown, two individual borrowers, one of whom has loans that are fully intelligible for forgiveness under the program, and one of whose loans only qualify for part of the maximum relief possible, also challenge the legitimacy of the program.

The Court will be faced with two questions in both cases: first, do the challengers, whether they be the states or the individual borrowers, have standing to sue? The Biden administration contends neither of the respondents possess standing. Second, assuming the Court decides there is standing to sue, the Court will face the question “Does the plan exceed the statutory authority available to the Secretary of Education, and adopted in a procedurally proper manner?”

We broke down and analyzed how oral argument went in both cases in this Courthouse steps program.

Featuring:
--Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53135592Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyFebruary 28, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases challenging the Biden Administration's Student Loans forgiveness program: Board of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska. In August 2022, the Biden Administration's...
In August 2022, the Biden Administration's Department of Education announced plans to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans for borrowers who qualified. In order to do this, the DOE relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the government to modify student loans, among other things, during a national emergency.

Both cases challenge this action. Biden v. Nebraska involves a challenge to the Executive action from six states who contend they will suffer direct harm based on a loss of tax revenue. In Department of Education v. Brown, two individual borrowers, one of whom has loans that are fully intelligible for forgiveness under the program, and one of whose loans only qualify for part of the maximum relief possible, also challenge the legitimacy of the program.

The Court will be faced with two questions in both cases: first, do the challengers, whether they be the states or the individual borrowers, have standing to sue? The Biden administration contends neither of the respondents possess standing. Second, assuming the Court decides there is standing to sue, the Court will face the question “Does the plan exceed the statutory authority available to the Secretary of Education, and adopted in a procedurally proper manner?”

We broke down and analyzed how oral argument went in both cases in this Courthouse steps program.

Featuring:
--Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
]]>3651administrative law & regulatio,education policy,federalism,federalism & separation of powcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/america-s-expanding-semiconductor-export-controls--53110256Beginning in the Trump Administration, the United States launched targeted export controls to restrict certain Chinese firms - like Huawei - from obtaining American semiconductor technology. Over the past two years, the Biden Administration has built on and broadened these efforts. In the Fall of 2022, the Commerce Department announced two new rules that restricted the sale of advanced semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and related software or technical assistance to China. Earlier this January, U.S. officials announced the existence of a deal with Japan and the Netherlands to craft broad, multinational export controls on semiconductor exports to China.
Can the Chinese semiconductor industry survive these new restrictions? How will they impact U.S. firms and researchers in this sector? Do they form a blueprint for new export control restrictions on other technology exports to China? This panel with two leading experts on strategic technology and trade controls discussed these and other questions.

Featuring:
--Hon. Nazak Nikakhtar, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
--Thomas Krueger, Senior Policy Advisor, Akin Gump LLP; Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
--Moderator: Trevor Jones, JD Candidate, Harvard Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53110256Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyMuch of global economic competition today centers around gaining market share in the semiconductor industry. Over the past decade, the Chinese Government has attempted to expand its market share across the semiconductor value chain through a complex...Beginning in the Trump Administration, the United States launched targeted export controls to restrict certain Chinese firms - like Huawei - from obtaining American semiconductor technology. Over the past two years, the Biden Administration has built on and broadened these efforts. In the Fall of 2022, the Commerce Department announced two new rules that restricted the sale of advanced semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and related software or technical assistance to China. Earlier this January, U.S. officials announced the existence of a deal with Japan and the Netherlands to craft broad, multinational export controls on semiconductor exports to China.
Can the Chinese semiconductor industry survive these new restrictions? How will they impact U.S. firms and researchers in this sector? Do they form a blueprint for new export control restrictions on other technology exports to China? This panel with two leading experts on strategic technology and trade controls discussed these and other questions.

Featuring:
--Hon. Nazak Nikakhtar, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
--Thomas Krueger, Senior Policy Advisor, Akin Gump LLP; Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
--Moderator: Trevor Jones, JD Candidate, Harvard Law School]]>3541cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-dubin-v-united-states--53140087
At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.

Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.

Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.

In this webinar, we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the same day this case is argued.

Featuring:
--John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53140087Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:00:19 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard Oral Argument in Dubin v. United States. At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a...
At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.

Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.

Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.

In this webinar, we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the same day this case is argued.

Featuring:
--John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding]]>3453criminal law & procedure,healthcarecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-gonzalez-v-google--53110422On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google.

After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.

The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?

In this recorded webinar, Erik Jaffe broke down oral argument in this case.

Featuring:
--Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53110422Tue, 21 Feb 2023 19:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google. After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and...On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google.

After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.

The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?

In this recorded webinar, Erik Jaffe broke down oral argument in this case.

Featuring:
--Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP]]>3668first amendment,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-2023--52868213
Gonzalez v. Google (February 21) - Telecommunications; Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act allows social media companies to make targeted recommendations of information provided by another content provider, or only limits the liability of such services when they engage in traditional editorial functions.

Twitter v. Taamneh (February 22) - Telecommunications; Whether a defendant providing generic services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance to terrorists using the platform under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use.

Dubin v. United States (February 27) - Criminal Law; Whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.

New York v. New Jersey (February 27) - Whether the Supreme Court should issue declaratory judgment and/or enjoin New Jersey from withdrawing from its Waterfront Commission Compact with New York, which grants the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor broad regulatory and law-enforcement powers over all operations at the Port of New York and New Jersey.

Biden v. Nebraska (February 28) - Federalism, Administrative Law; (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.

Department of Education v. Brown (February 28) - Federalism; (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner.

Featuring:
--Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
--John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
--Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director of the Intellectual Property, Information & --Communications Law Program, Michigan State University
--Moderator: Robert S. Driscoll, Shareholder, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52868213Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this episode are included below. Gonzalez v. Google (February 21) - Telecommunications; Whether Section 230(c)(1)...
Gonzalez v. Google (February 21) - Telecommunications; Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act allows social media companies to make targeted recommendations of information provided by another content provider, or only limits the liability of such services when they engage in traditional editorial functions.

Twitter v. Taamneh (February 22) - Telecommunications; Whether a defendant providing generic services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance to terrorists using the platform under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use.

Dubin v. United States (February 27) - Criminal Law; Whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.

New York v. New Jersey (February 27) - Whether the Supreme Court should issue declaratory judgment and/or enjoin New Jersey from withdrawing from its Waterfront Commission Compact with New York, which grants the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor broad regulatory and law-enforcement powers over all operations at the Port of New York and New Jersey.

Biden v. Nebraska (February 28) - Federalism, Administrative Law; (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.

Department of Education v. Brown (February 28) - Federalism; (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner.

Featuring:
--Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
--John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
--Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director of the Intellectual Property, Information & --Communications Law Program, Michigan State University
--Moderator: Robert S. Driscoll, Shareholder, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.]]>3788cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/does-the-administrative-procedure-act-provide-for-universal-vacatur--52839554Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act instructs courts to "set aside" agency action that is unlawful. These two words—"set aside"—have sparked much debate among lawyers, jurists, and scholars. In particular, administrative law enthusiasts disagree about whether the "set aside" language means that courts must enter universal injunctions against unlawful regulations. Some suggest that "set aside" contemplates wholesale invalidation of regulations. Others take the position that the scope of the "set aside" remedy is more limited. In United States v. Texas, which is before the Supreme Court this term, the Court is set to decide whether the "set aside" language requires universal vacatur of regulations. In advance of the Court's ruling, this teleforum panel discussed discuss this difficult question.

Featuring:
--Hon. Beth A. Williams, Member, United States Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School, and former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice
--Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law and Thomas F. Bergin Teaching Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law
--Prof. Ron Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
--[Moderator] Judge Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit




]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52839554Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:30:20 +0000The Federalist SocietySection 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act instructs courts to "set aside" agency action that is unlawful. These two words—"set aside"—have sparked much debate among lawyers, jurists, and scholars. In particular, administrative law enthusiasts...Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act instructs courts to "set aside" agency action that is unlawful. These two words—"set aside"—have sparked much debate among lawyers, jurists, and scholars. In particular, administrative law enthusiasts disagree about whether the "set aside" language means that courts must enter universal injunctions against unlawful regulations. Some suggest that "set aside" contemplates wholesale invalidation of regulations. Others take the position that the scope of the "set aside" remedy is more limited. In United States v. Texas, which is before the Supreme Court this term, the Court is set to decide whether the "set aside" language requires universal vacatur of regulations. In advance of the Court's ruling, this teleforum panel discussed discuss this difficult question.

Featuring:
--Hon. Beth A. Williams, Member, United States Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School, and former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice
--Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law and Thomas F. Bergin Teaching Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law
--Prof. Ron Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
--[Moderator] Judge Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit




]]>3584administrative law & regulatiocleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chapter-11-bankruptcy-mass-torts-a-review-of-the-third-circuit-s-ltl-opinion--53184659In 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The goal was to resolve all current and future claims fairly and efficiently. Opposition filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing it does not serve a valid restructuring purpose and suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith.

In February 2022, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL, holding that LTL’s filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed Chief Judge Kaplan and narrowly held in favor of claimants. The case is now under appeal for en banc review by the Third Circuit. Given the enormous national significance of the issue for corporate liability and civil justice, this case may advance to the Supreme Court for further adjudication.

In this recorded webinar a panel of bankruptcy law experts discuss the Third Circuit ruling, its impact, significance, and the path forward, including how to assess both the split between Chief Judge Kaplan and the Third Circuit. The panel discusses the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value and discuss the Third Circuit’s ruling in light of other Circuits that are reviewing similar legal questions. The panel will review core questions that the Third Circuit left unanswered and share their expert perspectives on the ruling’s precedent and what it may mean for mass tort litigation going forward.

Featuring:
--Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School
--Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53184659Thu, 16 Feb 2023 16:00:31 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The goal was to...In 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The goal was to resolve all current and future claims fairly and efficiently. Opposition filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing it does not serve a valid restructuring purpose and suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith.

In February 2022, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL, holding that LTL’s filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed Chief Judge Kaplan and narrowly held in favor of claimants. The case is now under appeal for en banc review by the Third Circuit. Given the enormous national significance of the issue for corporate liability and civil justice, this case may advance to the Supreme Court for further adjudication.

In this recorded webinar a panel of bankruptcy law experts discuss the Third Circuit ruling, its impact, significance, and the path forward, including how to assess both the split between Chief Judge Kaplan and the Third Circuit. The panel discusses the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value and discuss the Third Circuit’s ruling in light of other Circuits that are reviewing similar legal questions. The panel will review core questions that the Third Circuit left unanswered and share their expert perspectives on the ruling’s precedent and what it may mean for mass tort litigation going forward.

Featuring:
--Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School
--Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law]]>3684federal courts,litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-respect-for-marriage-act-religious-liberty-at-odds-or-unaffected--52839609In December 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA). The bill (1) repeals section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which permitted states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages created in other states; (2) forbids those acting “under of state law” to withhold recognition of marriages created in other states on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin; (3) creates mechanisms to enforce that prohibition; and (4) requires the federal government to recognize marriages validly created in one or more states. The RFMA also includes provisions relating to religious liberty.

Supporters of the bill claimed that portions of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization raised the specter of the Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage). They argued that the bill would be needed in the event the Court ever overturned Obergefell. Debate centered on (1) whether legislation to protect same-sex marriage was necessary; (2) the extent to which it would threaten the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and (3) the efficacy of the religious liberty provisions in the bill.

Now in the wake of the RFMA passing, those discussions continue. To what degree does the RFMA affect or possibly impinge on religious liberty? Has anything really changed, or is this simply the codification of the status quo? Is this a statute ripe for abuse that threatens the exercise of religious liberty, or are the warnings issued concerning it perhaps overblown?

Our panel of experts discussed these questions and others in this panel analyzing the Respect for Marriage Act, what it is, and what it means for religious liberty.

Featuring:
--Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law / Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law
--Gregory S. Baylor, Senior Counsel & Director of the Center for Religious Schools, Alliance Defending Freedom
--[Moderator] Matt Clark, President, Alabama Center for Law and Liberty]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52839609Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn December 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA). The bill (1) repeals section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which permitted states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages created in other states;...In December 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA). The bill (1) repeals section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which permitted states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages created in other states; (2) forbids those acting “under of state law” to withhold recognition of marriages created in other states on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin; (3) creates mechanisms to enforce that prohibition; and (4) requires the federal government to recognize marriages validly created in one or more states. The RFMA also includes provisions relating to religious liberty.

Supporters of the bill claimed that portions of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization raised the specter of the Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage). They argued that the bill would be needed in the event the Court ever overturned Obergefell. Debate centered on (1) whether legislation to protect same-sex marriage was necessary; (2) the extent to which it would threaten the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and (3) the efficacy of the religious liberty provisions in the bill.

Now in the wake of the RFMA passing, those discussions continue. To what degree does the RFMA affect or possibly impinge on religious liberty? Has anything really changed, or is this simply the codification of the status quo? Is this a statute ripe for abuse that threatens the exercise of religious liberty, or are the warnings issued concerning it perhaps overblown?

Our panel of experts discussed these questions and others in this panel analyzing the Respect for Marriage Act, what it is, and what it means for religious liberty.

Featuring:
--Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law / Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law
--Gregory S. Baylor, Senior Counsel & Director of the Center for Religious Schools, Alliance Defending Freedom
--[Moderator] Matt Clark, President, Alabama Center for Law and Liberty]]>3695cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ofccp-under-the-current-administration--52729857
OFCCP’s priorities and budget tend to vary greatly between presidential administrations. The Biden Administration has announced a number of reforms since 2020 including a focus on parental leave policies, intersectional discrimination, affirmative action, and more.

How have these reforms fared? And what does the future hold? Craig Leen, OFCCP Director under President Trump, and Shirley Wilcher, OFCCP Deputy Assistant Secretary under President Clinton, will join us to discuss these questions and more.

Featuring:

Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates and Former Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor

Shirley J. Wilcher, Executive Director, American Association for Access Equity and Diversity (AAAED) and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor

[Moderator] Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association and Former Deputy Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52729857Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:00:49 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) reports to the Secretary of Labor and is tasked with overseeing federal contractors and subcontractors ensuring they adhere to nondiscrimination laws and regulations. OFCCP’s priorities...
OFCCP’s priorities and budget tend to vary greatly between presidential administrations. The Biden Administration has announced a number of reforms since 2020 including a focus on parental leave policies, intersectional discrimination, affirmative action, and more.

How have these reforms fared? And what does the future hold? Craig Leen, OFCCP Director under President Trump, and Shirley Wilcher, OFCCP Deputy Assistant Secretary under President Clinton, will join us to discuss these questions and more.

Featuring:

Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates and Former Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor

Shirley J. Wilcher, Executive Director, American Association for Access Equity and Diversity (AAAED) and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor

[Moderator] Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association and Former Deputy Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor]]>3797administrative law & regulatio,civil rights,labor & employment lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-groff-v-dejoy-religious-liberty-in-the-workplace--52682144Gerald Groff alleges workplace discrimination by the U.S. Postal Service based on his faith under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. His refusal to work Sunday shifts due to Sabbath observance resulted in a penalty and sparked a contentious legal debate. Register now to stay up-to-date on this important case that has the potential to shape the future of religious liberty in the workplace.

Featuring:
--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
--Bruce Cameron, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund
--Blaine Hutchison, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52682144Tue, 07 Feb 2023 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin Stephanie Taub, Bruce Cameron, Blaine Hutchinson for discussion on Groff v. Dejoy, which was recently added to the Supreme Court docket. This case highlights questions at the intersection of religious liberty and workplace accommodation. Gerald...Gerald Groff alleges workplace discrimination by the U.S. Postal Service based on his faith under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. His refusal to work Sunday shifts due to Sabbath observance resulted in a penalty and sparked a contentious legal debate. Register now to stay up-to-date on this important case that has the potential to shape the future of religious liberty in the workplace.

Featuring:
--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
--Bruce Cameron, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund
--Blaine Hutchison, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund]]>3653cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/arbitration-and-the-supremes-a-roundup-of-recent-and-anticipated-supreme-court-arbitration-precedents--52616678
Featuring:
--Manuel Farach, Shareholder, Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A.
--Joshua B. Simmons, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
--Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52616678Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyDomestic and international arbitration has been the subject of considerable activity before the U.S. Supreme Court over most of the last decade. The Supreme Court’s last term (2021-2022) was no exception, with the Court deciding five...
Featuring:
--Manuel Farach, Shareholder, Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A.
--Joshua B. Simmons, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
--Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper]]>3641cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/section-230-goes-to-court-gonzalez-v-google-and-the-future-of-the-electronic-town-square--52595748
Featuring:
--Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Fellow, Free Speech & Peace, Stand Together
--Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation
--Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute
--Moderator: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52595748Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietySocial media platforms have emerged as the new “town square” and a key forum for public debate, but some have questioned whether that debate is as open and robust as it should be. On the other hand, some worry that efforts to regulate social media...
Featuring:
--Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Fellow, Free Speech & Peace, Stand Together
--Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation
--Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute
--Moderator: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP]]>3666free speech & election law,litigation,supreme court,telecommunications & electronicleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ukraine-s-national-bar-reform-renewal-and-independence--52586507
In this podcast, Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President of the Ukrainian National Bar Association has a conversation led by George Bogden regarding the origin of this independent body.

Featuring:
--Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President, Ukrainian National Bar Association
--Moderator: Dr. George Bogden, George F. Kennan Fellow, Kennan Institute, and Olin Fellow, Columbia Law School.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52586507Mon, 30 Jan 2023 17:36:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn an abrupt shift away from decades of tradition, Ukraine’s current National Bar arose from the adoption of a new model in 2013. The “Law On the Bar and Practice of Law” emerged amid recurring east-west tensions and pressures for domestic reform....
In this podcast, Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President of the Ukrainian National Bar Association has a conversation led by George Bogden regarding the origin of this independent body.

Featuring:
--Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President, Ukrainian National Bar Association
--Moderator: Dr. George Bogden, George F. Kennan Fellow, Kennan Institute, and Olin Fellow, Columbia Law School.]]>3954cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/clean-water-act-forward-to-the-past--52561676
Featuring:
--Kevin Minoli, Partner, Alston & Bird
--[Moderator] Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52561676Fri, 27 Jan 2023 14:08:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe federal Clean Water Act regulates discharges to “navigable waters,” which the Act defines as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” For decades the Environmental Protection Agency interpreted “waters of the US” very broadly...
Featuring:
--Kevin Minoli, Partner, Alston & Bird
--[Moderator] Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel]]>3814cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-cy-pres-defensible--52562272By a 6-5 vote, the Eighth Circuit recently declined en banc review of an opinion affirming approval of a Monsanto settlement that paid $16 million to cy pres while leaving 98% of the class uncompensated. The Second Circuit affirmed approval of a settlement with Navient that paid the class of student debtors nothing with all settlement proceeds going to a few nonprofits affiliated with the teachers' union funding the class action. Both courts rejected objectors' First Amendment and Rule 23 arguments, and both cases are now the subject of cert petitions.
Ted Frank, who argued Frank v. Gaos and is counsel of record in St. John v. Jones and Yeatman v. Hyland, and Brian Fitzpatrick, author of The Conservative Case for Class Actions, will debate the pros, cons, and legality of cy pres and discuss possible Supreme Court review.

Featuring:
--Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation & Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
--Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52562272Wed, 25 Jan 2023 20:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyCy pres is the practice of awarding class-action settlement funds to third-party organizations when distribution of settlement funds directly to class members is considered impractical. Champions of cy pres awards – which can amount to tens of...By a 6-5 vote, the Eighth Circuit recently declined en banc review of an opinion affirming approval of a Monsanto settlement that paid $16 million to cy pres while leaving 98% of the class uncompensated. The Second Circuit affirmed approval of a settlement with Navient that paid the class of student debtors nothing with all settlement proceeds going to a few nonprofits affiliated with the teachers' union funding the class action. Both courts rejected objectors' First Amendment and Rule 23 arguments, and both cases are now the subject of cert petitions.
Ted Frank, who argued Frank v. Gaos and is counsel of record in St. John v. Jones and Yeatman v. Hyland, and Brian Fitzpatrick, author of The Conservative Case for Class Actions, will debate the pros, cons, and legality of cy pres and discuss possible Supreme Court review.

Featuring:
--Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation & Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
--Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School]]>3710litigationcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-united-states-v-moore-bush--53958163They watched the house for eight months until they obtained enough evidence to get a warrant. The warrant led to a prosecution. Moore and her daughter moved to suppress the evidence. The district court granted this motion but the First Circuit later reversed.
Now, Moore and her daughter are asking the Supreme Court to decide “[w]hether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search.” A nearly identical certiorari petition arose from the Seventh Circuit a year ago but was denied. The Federalist Society covered that petition on a previous teleforum featuring a debate about whether the word “search” in the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted in accord with the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test or in accord with the word’s plain meaning.
In this program, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney, Robert Frommer, provides a litigation update on this interesting Fourth Amendment question and the petition before the Court. The Institute for Justice filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant the petition for certiorari.

Featuring:
--Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53958163Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn 2017, ATF agents placed a surveillance camera on a pole across the street from Daphne Moore’s home in Massachusetts. They suspected Moore’s daughter of dealing drugs and guns. They watched the house for eight months until they obtained enough...They watched the house for eight months until they obtained enough evidence to get a warrant. The warrant led to a prosecution. Moore and her daughter moved to suppress the evidence. The district court granted this motion but the First Circuit later reversed.
Now, Moore and her daughter are asking the Supreme Court to decide “[w]hether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search.” A nearly identical certiorari petition arose from the Seventh Circuit a year ago but was denied. The Federalist Society covered that petition on a previous teleforum featuring a debate about whether the word “search” in the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted in accord with the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test or in accord with the word’s plain meaning.
In this program, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney, Robert Frommer, provides a litigation update on this interesting Fourth Amendment question and the petition before the Court. The Institute for Justice filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant the petition for certiorari.

Featuring:
--Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts
]]>3071cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-turkiye-halk-bankasi-a-s-v-united-states--52529300
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.

Halkbank, is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.
The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.

This program, held on January 18, 2023 broke down and analyzed the oral argument.

Featuring:
--Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52529300Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:00:27 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn January 17, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of...
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.

Halkbank, is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.
The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.

This program, held on January 18, 2023 broke down and analyzed the oral argument.

Featuring:
--Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP
]]>3075criminal law & procedure,international law & trade,international & national securcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-glacier-northwest-inc-v-international-brotherhood-of-teamsters--52432854Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174, a case involving the intentional destruction of an employer’s property. The employer, Glacier Northwest, manufactures ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix concrete hardens quickly and must be poured on the same day it’s mixed. In August 2017, a union representing Glacier’s employees called a sudden strike. The union allegedly timed the strike so that concrete would be left to harden in Glacier’s trucks. Predictably, the concrete was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages. But state courts rejected the suit. They held that the suit was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because (a) the union’s conduct was arguably protected by federal law, and (b) the conduct fell outside an existing exception for intentional-tort claims because it involved no violence or “outrageous conduct.”On January 10, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on both of those conclusions. The central issue for the Court is whether the NLRA preempts intentional tort claims except when they’re accompanied by violence or outrageous conduct. The union argues that the state courts got it right: violence or outrageous conduct is necessary. Glacier, on the other hand, argues that violence or outrageous conduct has never been required. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has long recognized that intentional property destruction is unprotected and falls outside the NLRA’s preemptive reach.Regardless of who wins that argument, the resulting decision will likely clarify the scope of NLRA preemption. And potentially, it will offer guidance on the bounds of acceptable strike-related conduct.Join Alex MacDonald the afternoon of the oral arguments to stay informed on one of the most important cases currently before the Supreme Court. The webinar will be held on January 10 at 4:00 PM ET. Sign up today to reserve your spot.

Featuring:
--Alex MacDonald, Director, Future of Work and Labor Law, Instacart]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52432854Tue, 10 Jan 2023 20:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to clarify when and under what circumstances federal labor law preempts state tort claims for strike-related misconduct. Next week, it will hear oral arguments in...Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174, a case involving the intentional destruction of an employer’s property. The employer, Glacier Northwest, manufactures ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix concrete hardens quickly and must be poured on the same day it’s mixed. In August 2017, a union representing Glacier’s employees called a sudden strike. The union allegedly timed the strike so that concrete would be left to harden in Glacier’s trucks. Predictably, the concrete was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages. But state courts rejected the suit. They held that the suit was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because (a) the union’s conduct was arguably protected by federal law, and (b) the conduct fell outside an existing exception for intentional-tort claims because it involved no violence or “outrageous conduct.”On January 10, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on both of those conclusions. The central issue for the Court is whether the NLRA preempts intentional tort claims except when they’re accompanied by violence or outrageous conduct. The union argues that the state courts got it right: violence or outrageous conduct is necessary. Glacier, on the other hand, argues that violence or outrageous conduct has never been required. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has long recognized that intentional property destruction is unprotected and falls outside the NLRA’s preemptive reach.Regardless of who wins that argument, the resulting decision will likely clarify the scope of NLRA preemption. And potentially, it will offer guidance on the bounds of acceptable strike-related conduct.Join Alex MacDonald the afternoon of the oral arguments to stay informed on one of the most important cases currently before the Supreme Court. The webinar will be held on January 10 at 4:00 PM ET. Sign up today to reserve your spot.

Featuring:
--Alex MacDonald, Director, Future of Work and Labor Law, Instacart]]>1920cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-january-2023--52617625

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this episode are included below.

• In re Grand Jury (Jan. 9) - Professional Responsibility; whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the purposes behind the communication.
• The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (Jan. 9) - Labor Law; whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.
• Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Jan. 10) - Labor Law; Whether the National Labor Relations Act impliedly preempts a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property in the course of a labor dispute.
• Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (Jan. 11) - Federalism; whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.
• Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Jan. 17) - Immigration; whether the court of appeals correctly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.

Featuring:
--William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University; Co-Author, The Law of Lawyering
--Tessa E. Shurr, Litigation Associate, The Fairness Center
--Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
--Moderator: Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617625Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this episode are included below. - https://fedsoc.org/case/in-re-grand-jury (Jan. 9) - Professional Responsibility;...

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this episode are included below.

• In re Grand Jury (Jan. 9) - Professional Responsibility; whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the purposes behind the communication.
• The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (Jan. 9) - Labor Law; whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.
• Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Jan. 10) - Labor Law; Whether the National Labor Relations Act impliedly preempts a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property in the course of a labor dispute.
• Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (Jan. 11) - Federalism; whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.
• Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Jan. 17) - Immigration; whether the court of appeals correctly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.

Featuring:
--William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University; Co-Author, The Law of Lawyering
--Tessa E. Shurr, Litigation Associate, The Fairness Center
--Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
--Moderator: Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
]]>5423cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/whither-neo-brandeisian-antitrust-enforcement-a-candid-conversation-with-jonathan-kanter--52238538
At this luncheon event, Rick Rule, the head of the Antitrust Division under President Reagan (and a former partner of Kanter), probed Kanter on what he is hoping to achieve during his tenure and how he is going to deal with the skepticism of the courts.

Featuring:
- Hon. Jonathan S. Kanter, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
- Moderator: Hon. Charles "Rick" Rule, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52238538Tue, 20 Dec 2022 15:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Biden administration has made aggressive antitrust enforcement a priority, and appointed Jonathan Kanter to be the nation’s chief antitrust law enforcer as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department...
At this luncheon event, Rick Rule, the head of the Antitrust Division under President Reagan (and a former partner of Kanter), probed Kanter on what he is hoping to achieve during his tenure and how he is going to deal with the skepticism of the courts.

Featuring:
- Hon. Jonathan S. Kanter, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
- Moderator: Hon. Charles "Rick" Rule, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP]]>4121corporations,securities & antitrustcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-an-introduction-to-constitutional-law-100-supreme-court-cases-everyone-should-know--52432056 Featuring:
Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
---
To register, please click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52432056Fri, 16 Dec 2022 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessors Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman will discuss the most important Supreme Court cases of all time, as featured in their new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. Plus, they will debut a... Featuring:
Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
---
To register, please click the link above.]]>3399the practice groupscleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-volokh-et-al-v-james--52228466 The new law originated, in part, as a response to a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead as the result of what is alleged to be a racially motivated crime. The law aims to restrict "hateful" speech on social media platforms and requires social media networks to “provide and maintain a clear and easily accessible mechanism for individual users to report incidents of hateful conduct.” Additionally, the networks must establish and publish a policy outlining how they will “respond [sic] and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.”
The State of New York has asserted that hate speech moderation of this sort can be a useful tool in preventing hate crimes. Plaintiffs are represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and argue that the law violates the First Amendment and forces social media networks to police their users. They further submit that enforcement of the law requires a subjective determination of what constitutes “hateful conduct,” thereby instituting viewpoint discrimination and chilling constitutionally protected speech.
Please join us for this Litigation Update from Prof. Eugene Volokh.
Featuring:
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Founder, The Volokh Conspiracy
---
To register, click the link above.
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52228466Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:00:10 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn early December, Prof. Eugene Volokh, Rumble Canada, and Locals Technology filed a complaint in federal court against New York Attorney General Letitia James, seeking to stop a new New York state law from taking effect. The suit challenges a... The new law originated, in part, as a response to a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead as the result of what is alleged to be a racially motivated crime. The law aims to restrict "hateful" speech on social media platforms and requires social media networks to “provide and maintain a clear and easily accessible mechanism for individual users to report incidents of hateful conduct.” Additionally, the networks must establish and publish a policy outlining how they will “respond [sic] and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.”
The State of New York has asserted that hate speech moderation of this sort can be a useful tool in preventing hate crimes. Plaintiffs are represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and argue that the law violates the First Amendment and forces social media networks to police their users. They further submit that enforcement of the law requires a subjective determination of what constitutes “hateful conduct,” thereby instituting viewpoint discrimination and chilling constitutionally protected speech.
Please join us for this Litigation Update from Prof. Eugene Volokh.
Featuring:
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Founder, The Volokh Conspiracy
---
To register, click the link above.
]]>3515civil rights,constitution,first amendment,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/parental-rights-and-religious-liberty-examining-new-conflicts-between-parents-and-the-state--52333855The Supreme Court has articulated that parents have the unenumerated right rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children since the 1920s in such cases as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska, Parham v. J.R. and Troxel v. Granville. However, the precise contours of the right have long been uncertain, as has the level of scrutiny to be applied.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court established a clear threshold for unenumerated rights, that they must be rooted in history and tradition and essential to ordered liberty. The Court noted that its decision does not call into question its line of cases on parental rights. Nevertheless, the question remains: do parental rights meet the Court’s threshold? Are there reasons to believe that parental rights will be affected by the Dobbs decision?

The Dobbs decision comes as a new series of conflicts between parents and the state are arising in education and healthcare around the country. Many of these conflicts over ideas about gender and race. These new conflicts implicate parental rights and are raising questions for courts such as:

1. Who has the primary responsibility for the formation of a child’s identity and values?
2. Do parental rights extend beyond the schoolhouse gate to include instruction and policies in schools?
3. And who gets to decide the treatment of a child’s mental health, including gender distress?

These questions and more have been raised in a series of recent lawsuits against school districts over policies concerning race and gender-based curriculum and policies where challengers have invoked parental rights theories. How do those arguments square with existing doctrine? How might they extend existing doctrine?

Featuring:
--Professor James Dwyer, Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School
--Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives and Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom
--[Moderator] Professor Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law and Director, Program on Church, State & Society, University of Notre Dame Law School
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52333855Wed, 14 Dec 2022 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Supreme Court has articulated that parents have the unenumerated right rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children since the 1920s in such cases as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v....The Supreme Court has articulated that parents have the unenumerated right rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children since the 1920s in such cases as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska, Parham v. J.R. and Troxel v. Granville. However, the precise contours of the right have long been uncertain, as has the level of scrutiny to be applied.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court established a clear threshold for unenumerated rights, that they must be rooted in history and tradition and essential to ordered liberty. The Court noted that its decision does not call into question its line of cases on parental rights. Nevertheless, the question remains: do parental rights meet the Court’s threshold? Are there reasons to believe that parental rights will be affected by the Dobbs decision?

The Dobbs decision comes as a new series of conflicts between parents and the state are arising in education and healthcare around the country. Many of these conflicts over ideas about gender and race. These new conflicts implicate parental rights and are raising questions for courts such as:

1. Who has the primary responsibility for the formation of a child’s identity and values?
2. Do parental rights extend beyond the schoolhouse gate to include instruction and policies in schools?
3. And who gets to decide the treatment of a child’s mental health, including gender distress?

These questions and more have been raised in a series of recent lawsuits against school districts over policies concerning race and gender-based curriculum and policies where challengers have invoked parental rights theories. How do those arguments square with existing doctrine? How might they extend existing doctrine?

Featuring:
--Professor James Dwyer, Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School
--Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives and Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom
--[Moderator] Professor Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law and Director, Program on Church, State & Society, University of Notre Dame Law School
]]>3603healthcare,religious libertycleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/back-to-the-future-biden-administration-seeks-return-to-restrictive-standards-for-businesses-and-independent-contractors--52422698The Department of Labor recently closed its open comment period for its proposed rulemaking regarding Employee or Independent Contractor Classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As such, this webinar explores what the proposed rule seeks to do, and how the affected stakeholder community has responded. In addition, the proposed rule comes out of litigation and may in fact create additional litigation in 2023. In addition, the speakers highlight other actions that impact independent workers including the NLRB's pending decision in Atlanta Opera as well as the DOL joint employer rulemaking. On this teleforum we will hear from Maury Baskin (Littler-Mendelson) who led a winning effort against the DOL in Coalition for Workforce Innovation (CWI) v. Secretary Walsh as well as the Chair of CWI, Evan Armstrong.

Featuring:
--Evan Armstrong, Vice President, Government Affairs, Retail Industry Leaders Association
--Maury Baskin, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52422698Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:53:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Department of Labor recently closed its open comment period for its proposed rulemaking regarding https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/WHD/WHD20221011-0 under the https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa As such, this webinar explores what the...The Department of Labor recently closed its open comment period for its proposed rulemaking regarding Employee or Independent Contractor Classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As such, this webinar explores what the proposed rule seeks to do, and how the affected stakeholder community has responded. In addition, the proposed rule comes out of litigation and may in fact create additional litigation in 2023. In addition, the speakers highlight other actions that impact independent workers including the NLRB's pending decision in Atlanta Opera as well as the DOL joint employer rulemaking. On this teleforum we will hear from Maury Baskin (Littler-Mendelson) who led a winning effort against the DOL in Coalition for Workforce Innovation (CWI) v. Secretary Walsh as well as the Chair of CWI, Evan Armstrong.

Featuring:
--Evan Armstrong, Vice President, Government Affairs, Retail Industry Leaders Association
--Maury Baskin, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.]]>3368cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-moore-v-harper--52228522 Following the most recent census, 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.
We will break down the oral argument for this case on the same day, December 7, 2022.
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/52228522Wed, 07 Dec 2022 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Moore v. Harper. Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that... Following the most recent census, 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.
We will break down the oral argument for this case on the same day, December 7, 2022.
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]]>3535election law,federalism,free speech & election lawcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-is-the-future-of-u-s-counterintelligence-and-the-national-counterintelligence-and-security-center--52133877 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
]]>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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-303-creative-v-elenis--52132923 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


]]>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/episode/nc-naacp-v-moore-the-impact-of-unconstitutional-legislative-maps-on-a-state-legislature-s-ability-to-propose-constitutional-amendments--52046479Our 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 16:00:00 +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/episode/post-oral-argument-courthouse-steps-percoco-v-united-states--52082215 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/52082215Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:00:24 +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... 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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-december-2022--52617589
Percoco v. United States (Nov. 28) - Criminal Law; whether a private citizen who can influence government decision-making owes a duty to the public, so that he can be convicted of bribery.
Ciminelli v. United States (Nov. 28) - Criminal Law; whether a defendant can be convicted under the federal wire-fraud statute based on a “right to control” theory.
United States v. Texas (Nov. 29) - Immigration; a challenge to the Biden administration’s policy of prioritizing certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and detention.
Wilkins v. United States (Nov. 30) - Property Rights, whether the 12-year statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit under the Quiet Title Act is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.
303 Creative v. Elenis (Dec. 5) - Civil Rights; whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to require an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Constitution’s free speech clause.
MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (Dec. 5) - Bankruptcy; whether a provision of federal bankruptcy law limits the power of the courts of appeals over an order approving the sale of a debtor’s assets.
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (Dec. 6) - Bankruptcy; whether a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for another person’s fraud.
Moore v. Harper (Dec. 7) - Election Law; whether a state supreme court’s order invalidating a state’s congressional map and ordering the state to draw a new one violates the Constitution’s elections clause.

Featuring:

Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP; Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity Network
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Samuel D. Adkisson, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617589Tue, 22 Nov 2022 18:00:00 +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. Percoco v. United States (Nov. 28) - Criminal Law; whether a private citizen...
Percoco v. United States (Nov. 28) - Criminal Law; whether a private citizen who can influence government decision-making owes a duty to the public, so that he can be convicted of bribery.
Ciminelli v. United States (Nov. 28) - Criminal Law; whether a defendant can be convicted under the federal wire-fraud statute based on a “right to control” theory.
United States v. Texas (Nov. 29) - Immigration; a challenge to the Biden administration’s policy of prioritizing certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and detention.
Wilkins v. United States (Nov. 30) - Property Rights, whether the 12-year statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit under the Quiet Title Act is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.
303 Creative v. Elenis (Dec. 5) - Civil Rights; whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to require an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Constitution’s free speech clause.
MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (Dec. 5) - Bankruptcy; whether a provision of federal bankruptcy law limits the power of the courts of appeals over an order approving the sale of a debtor’s assets.
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (Dec. 6) - Bankruptcy; whether a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for another person’s fraud.
Moore v. Harper (Dec. 7) - Election Law; whether a state supreme court’s order invalidating a state’s congressional map and ordering the state to draw a new one violates the Constitution’s elections clause.

Featuring:

Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP; Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity Network
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Samuel D. Adkisson, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn

]]>4913cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/recent-doj-policy-for-charging-cases-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-fair-or-foul--51980149
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/51980149Thu, 17 Nov 2022 18:00:52 +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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-mallory-v-norfolk-southern--51968903 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.
Please join us for analysis of how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.

Associated Blog Post: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: Oral Argument Preview
---
To register, click the link above.
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51968903Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:00:24 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 8, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear 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... 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.
Please join us for analysis of how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.

Associated Blog Post: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: Oral Argument Preview
---
To register, click the link above.
]]>3077constitution,due process,fourteenth amendment,state courts,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/humphrey-s-executor-and-presidential-removal-power--51980308 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 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, 15 Nov 2022 16:00:00 +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... 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 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sec-v-cochran--51980325
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, 08 Nov 2022 19:00:00 +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/episode/tiwari-v-friedlander-which-rational-basis-test-is-it-anyway--51812856The 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]]>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]]>3640cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/litigation-update-garrison-v-u-s-dept-of-ed-a-challenge-to-biden-s-student-loan-forgiveness--51967916
This Litigation Update from Caleb Kruckenberg will provided 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/51967916Fri, 04 Nov 2022 18:00:07 +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 provided 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sffa-v-harvard--51768034In 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 heard 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 preferential...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/episode/what-are-the-limits-of-emergency-executive-powers--51756477 The 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 expulsions, and President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan have all raised questions of overreach. This panel explored the pros and cons of executive emergency powers and whether or not there should be tighter constraints on their use.

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 21:00:00 +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... The 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 expulsions, and President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan have all raised questions of overreach. This panel explored the pros and cons of executive emergency powers and whether or not there should be tighter constraints on their use.

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/episode/is-the-office-of-foreign-assets-control-s-sanctioning-of-tornado-cash-a-threat-to-the-future-of-financial-privacy--51708418 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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-november-2022--52617582

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether Harvard University is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by purportedly penalizing Asian American applicants.

• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether a university can reject race-neutral admissions without proving that such action would damage the student body or standard of education.

• Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Cochran (November 7) – Whether a federal district has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an SEC administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding based on an alleged constitutional defect regarding the removal of administrative law judges.

• Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n (November 7) – Whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders.

• Haaland v. Brackeen (November 9) – Equal protection clause; whether the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 violates the anti commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment.

Featuring:

• Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
• Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
• Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
• Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
• Moderator: Amy Howe, Howe on the Court

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617582Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this program are included below. - https://fedsoc.org/case/students-for-fair-admissions-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college...

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether Harvard University is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by purportedly penalizing Asian American applicants.

• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether a university can reject race-neutral admissions without proving that such action would damage the student body or standard of education.

• Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Cochran (November 7) – Whether a federal district has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an SEC administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding based on an alleged constitutional defect regarding the removal of administrative law judges.

• Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n (November 7) – Whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders.

• Haaland v. Brackeen (November 9) – Equal protection clause; whether the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 violates the anti commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment.

Featuring:

• Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
• Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
• Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
• Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
• Moderator: Amy Howe, Howe on the Court

]]>4998cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-vincent-phillip-munoz-on-religious-liberty-and-the-american-founding--51921226
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/51921226Tue, 25 Oct 2022 16:00:00 +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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-national-pork-producers-council-v-ross--51626859 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-andy-warhol-foundation-for-the-visual-arts-inc-v-goldsmith--51612606 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 19:00:00 +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... 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/episode/energy-security-after-ukraine-what-are-the-challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-u-s-and-its-allies--51555464
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/episode/suing-religious-employers-the-extent-of-exemptions-in-title-vii--51921190Additionally, 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, 12 Oct 2022 16:00:00 +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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sackett-v-environmental-protection-agency--51500936 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.
]]>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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-merrill-v-milligan--51708447Following 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 broke 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/51708447Tue, 04 Oct 2022 19:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court heard 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 lines,...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 broke 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/episode/the-2022-mike-lewis-memorial-teleforum-peace-in-cyberspace-how-it-was-lost-and-how-to-restore-it--51444116
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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-october-2022--52617554

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (October 3) – environmental law; water policy regulations; administrative law


Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (October 3) – State claims dispute over travelers checks; financial services & e-commerce


Merrill v. Milligan (October 11) – election law; whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act


National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (October 11) – interstate commerce, dormant commerce clause


Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt (October 12) – labor law; regulatory policy on overtime pay and exemptions; Fair Labor Standard’s Act


Featuring:

Donald Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Charles Yates, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Moderator: Adam Gustafson, Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at Boeing

---
To register, please click the link above.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617554Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:00:00 +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. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (October 3) –...

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (October 3) – environmental law; water policy regulations; administrative law


Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (October 3) – State claims dispute over travelers checks; financial services & e-commerce


Merrill v. Milligan (October 11) – election law; whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act


National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (October 11) – interstate commerce, dormant commerce clause


Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt (October 12) – labor law; regulatory policy on overtime pay and exemptions; Fair Labor Standard’s Act


Featuring:

Donald Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Charles Yates, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Moderator: Adam Gustafson, Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at Boeing

---
To register, please click the link above.]]>5332cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/digital-discrimination-under-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act--51396822
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/episode/who-decides-if-january-6-was-an-insurrection-prohibiting-the-election-of-participants--51395900
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/episode/answering-threats-to-taiwan-where-does-law-matter--51308699 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
—
To register, please click the link above.
]]>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... 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
—
To register, please click the link above.
]]>3690cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-next-for-crypto-implications-of-deflated-prices-and-turmoil-in-cryptocurrency-markets--51708316
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
---
To register, click the link above]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51708316Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:00:00 +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
---
To register, click the link above]]>3637cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-original-meaning-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-implications-for-labor-law--51202781
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/episode/talks-with-authors-classified-the-untold-story-of-racial-classification-in-america--51708544Professor Bernstein joined 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/51708544Tue, 06 Sep 2022 17:00:00 +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 joined 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/episode/religious-liberty-at-the-supreme-court-2022--51105677
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/episode/is-arizona-s-new-police-recording-law-constitutional--51708605
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]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51708605Tue, 30 Aug 2022 16:00:00 +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/episode/litigation-update-reges-v-univ-of-washington-university-acknowledgement-of-indigenous-land--51065227
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/episode/do-university-diversity-statement-requirements-violate-the-constitution--51065352
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/episode/litigation-update-faust-v-vilsack-race-discrimination-in-the-american-rescue-plan--51065087
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/episode/do-russian-oligarchs-retain-property-rights-in-the-west--52435796
Featuring:
--Dean Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC; Former Vice-Chairman and Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission
--Prof. Paul B. Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, David H. Ibbeken '71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
--Moderator: Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52435796Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:00:42 +0000The Federalist SocietyIn response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, assets of Russian oligarchs have been frozen in Western Europe and the United States. Now some leaders in Western countries urge that these assets be assigned to reconstruction efforts in Ukraine. Are...
Featuring:
--Dean Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC; Former Vice-Chairman and Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission
--Prof. Paul B. Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, David H. Ibbeken '71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
--Moderator: Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University]]>3589cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-the-future-be-determined-by-the-past-bearing-arms-after-bruen--52433542Did Bruen correctly decide that the right to bear arms applies outside the home? Will Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test be a viable means of analyzing modern gun control laws that have no historical analogue? And now that the right to bear arms outside the home has been recognized as a constitutional right, what effects will Bruen have on state laws criminalizing the carrying of weapons and on police stop-and-frisk policies?

Featuring:
--Adam Winkler, Connell Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law
--Robert Leider, Assistant Professor, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
--Moderator: Nelson Lund, University Professor, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52433542Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyProfessor Nelson Lund will moderate a debate between Professors Adam Winkler and Robert Leider on the Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment decision. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the Second...Did Bruen correctly decide that the right to bear arms applies outside the home? Will Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test be a viable means of analyzing modern gun control laws that have no historical analogue? And now that the right to bear arms outside the home has been recognized as a constitutional right, what effects will Bruen have on state laws criminalizing the carrying of weapons and on police stop-and-frisk policies?

Featuring:
--Adam Winkler, Connell Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law
--Robert Leider, Assistant Professor, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
--Moderator: Nelson Lund, University Professor, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School]]>3728cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/opioids-the-crisis-in-2022-and-beyond--52433640Three noted voices in the field provide their thoughts and opinions on the opioid crisis, how it began, why it persists, and how it finally can be solved.

Featuring:
--Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
--Joseph Grogan, Founder, Fire Arrow Consulting, and Former Director, United States Domestic Policy Council
--Paul Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
--Moderator: Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP and Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52433640Wed, 10 Aug 2022 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyAfter years of tragic deaths and through a global pandemic, some experts contend that the opioid epidemic has only gotten worse. Three noted voices in the field provide their thoughts and opinions on the opioid crisis, how it began, why it persists,...Three noted voices in the field provide their thoughts and opinions on the opioid crisis, how it began, why it persists, and how it finally can be solved.

Featuring:
--Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
--Joseph Grogan, Founder, Fire Arrow Consulting, and Former Director, United States Domestic Policy Council
--Paul Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
--Moderator: Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP and Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi]]>3630cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-created-equal-clarence-thomas-in-his-own-words--50865483
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-oklahoma-v-castro-huerta--50865387Justice 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/episode/the-future-of-chevron-deference-at-the-supreme-court--50865328
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-biden-v-texas--50865296In 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-west-virginia-v-epa--50865173This 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/episode/the-future-of-homemade-firearms-the-legal-and-political-implications-of-atf-final-rule-2021r-05f--50740334
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/episode/litigation-update-state-legislatures-state-courts-and-federal-elections--50740328 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]]>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/episode/is-the-eeoc-misusing-the-freedom-of-information-act-to-penalize-employers-that-adopt-mandatory-employment-arbitration-programs--50740296
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/episode/a-response-to-ten-years-on-the-america-invents-act-and-the-role-of-the-patent-trial-and-appeal-board-in-resolving-patent-disputes--50740288
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/episode/consumers-research-v-fcc-and-the-legality-of-the-universal-service-fund-contribution-regime--50729781
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/episode/are-irs-defenses-crumbling--50729765
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/episode/liar-liar-false-statements-and-the-freedom-of-speech--50729776
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/episode/a-discussion-on-dobbs--50536537
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/episode/private-sector-diversity-programs-perks-and-pitfalls--50500479 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
---
To register, please click the link above.]]>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
---
To register, please click the link above.]]>3600cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/does-the-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-ferc-have-authority-to-regulate-the-climate--50498887
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/episode/state-constitutions-and-individual-liberty-state-or-federal-government-as-primary-custodian-of-individual-rights--50473856The 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/episode/the-use-of-race-in-the-biden-harris-administration-and-legal-challenges-to-race-based-policymaking--50473765https://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/episode/are-we-still-one-people-do-we-hold-these-truths--50473873
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-organization--50473785
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen--50378649
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/episode/due-process-protections-in-agency-enforcement-actions--50189061
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/episode/the-future-of-universal-service-after-the-infrastructure-act--50111409
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/episode/crypto-wars-balancing-privacy-versus-national-security--50189636
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-morgan-v-sundance--50188967Justice 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/episode/issue-update-critical-race-theory-legislation-across-the-states--50188849
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/episode/courthouse-steps-cummings-v-premier-rehab-keller--50016177
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/episode/due-process-protections-in-agency-enforcement-actions--50189055On 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/episode/from-russia-without-love-u-s-energy-policy-environmental-goals-foreign-wars-and-the-administrative-state--49960766
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/episode/college-admissions-fair-or-fixed--49958419 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/episode/the-government-s-arms-around-cryptocurrency-hug-or-stranglehold--49925633
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/episode/hollywood-s-recent-best-picture-winner-shines-a-spotlight-on-the-harms-of-the-administrative-state--49925234
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/episode/central-bank-digital-currency-efficient-innovation-or-the-end-of-the-private-banking-system--49834682
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/episode/how-the-largest-whistleblower-award-in-history-came-about--49834650
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-hemphill-v-new-york--49834622
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-determining-finality-for-pursuing-liability-the-implications-of-thompson-v-clark--49834590 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/episode/the-biden-administration-s-enhanced-policies-on-corporate-criminal-and-regulatory-enforcement--49679293
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/episode/environmental-justice-property-rights-and-zoning--49678468
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-badgerow-v-walters--49659183
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/episode/ten-years-on-the-america-invents-act-and-the-role-of-the-patent-trial-and-appeal-board-in-resolving-patent-disputes--49654799 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district--49587597
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-united-states-v-tsarnaev--49587580
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/episode/judicial-ethics-in-the-modern-era--49587562
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/episode/ukraine-in-crisis--49587519
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/episode/criminal-market-allocation-or-pro-competitive-agreement-the-debate-over-doj-s-no-poach-prosecutions--49559129
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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-april-2022--49559096

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/episode/talks-with-authors-john-fisher-and-thomas-more-keeping-their-souls-while-losing-their-heads--49483120Judge 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 19:22:00 +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/episode/issue-update-woke-capital--49482910
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-egbert-v-boule--49438899In 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/episode/revisiting-jacobson--49438889
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/episode/title-vi-college-admissions-and-public-opinion--49435371Featuring:

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/episode/the-separation-of-powers-from-washington-to-sacramento--49435347Expanding 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/episode/litigation-update-new-york-s-covid-therapeutics-case--49412641
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/episode/citizen-suits-separation-of-powers-and-the-future-of-the-supreme-court-s-standing-jurisprudence--49402370
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/episode/litigation-update-ducey-v-treasury--49274932
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/episode/where-s-the-beef-inflation-at-the-grocery-store-and-proposed-regulatory-responses--49240959
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/episode/spectrum-policy-in-the-5g-era--49185283
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/episode/legal-review-dobbs-and-the-holdings-of-roe-and-casey--49141959These 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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-march-2022--52617492

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (March 21) – arbitration and contract law

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of NAACP (March 21) – states rights, intervention, and civil procedure

Golan v. Saada (March 22) – international law; the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. consolidated for argument with Alixpartners, LLP v. Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights (March 23) – rules of evidence before international arbitral tribunals; what constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a)

Ledure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (March 28) – The Locomotive Inspection Act

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (March 28) – the definition of “transportation workers” under the Federal Arbitration Act

Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety (March 29) – state sovereign immunity, the constitutional war power, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (March 30) – enforcement of bilateral agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act

Featuring:

• Theane Evangelis, Partner, Gibson Dunn
• Jonathan Urick, Association Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center
• John Elwood, Partner, Arnold Porter
• Evan Caminker, Dean Emeritus and Branch Rickey Collegiate Professor of Law at Michigan Law
• Moderator: Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Correspondent, The Wall Street Journal

---
This conference has already happened. Watch the archived video above or at www.youtube.com/c/TheFederalis...]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617492Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:55:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. Issues presented in the March 2022 sitting included arbitration and the Federal Arbitration Act, international law, states rights, civil...

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (March 21) – arbitration and contract law

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of NAACP (March 21) – states rights, intervention, and civil procedure

Golan v. Saada (March 22) – international law; the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. consolidated for argument with Alixpartners, LLP v. Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights (March 23) – rules of evidence before international arbitral tribunals; what constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a)

Ledure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (March 28) – The Locomotive Inspection Act

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (March 28) – the definition of “transportation workers” under the Federal Arbitration Act

Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety (March 29) – state sovereign immunity, the constitutional war power, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (March 30) – enforcement of bilateral agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act

Featuring:

• Theane Evangelis, Partner, Gibson Dunn
• Jonathan Urick, Association Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center
• John Elwood, Partner, Arnold Porter
• Evan Caminker, Dean Emeritus and Branch Rickey Collegiate Professor of Law at Michigan Law
• Moderator: Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Correspondent, The Wall Street Journal

---
This...]]>5410cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/talks-with-authors-who-decides-states-as-laboratories-of-constitutional-experimentation--49084063
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/episode/draft-sep-policy-statement--49072332
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center--49033303
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/episode/litigation-update-wooden-v-united-states--49018775Speaker:

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/episode/litigation-update-in-re-ltl-management--49017616
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/episode/opioid-litigations-and-public-nuisance-updates-from-california-oklahoma-and-ohio--49009316
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/episode/book-review-unborn-human-life-and-fundamental-rights-leading-constitutional-cases-under-scrutiny--48997685Professor 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/episode/the-future-of-the-supreme-court--48981474
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/episode/switchbacks-at-the-doj-the-sessions-brand-and-garland-memos--48981331
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/episode/march-2022-virtual-dc-lunch-with-ed-whelan--48936283Featuring:
--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/episode/litigation-update-thomas-jefferson-high-litigation--48927236 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-west-virginia-v-epa--48915629The 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-lp--48910399Featuring:
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/episode/freedom-of-thought-on-campus-discussion-and-debate-at-georgetown--48863733Many 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/episode/litigation-update-merrill-v-milligan--48858310 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/episode/cert-petition-litigation-update-united-states-v-tuggle-and-the-meaning-of-search--48834979
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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-2022--52617478
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (Feb. 22) Indian tribes and state law
Denezpi v. United States (Feb. 22) Indian law
Arizona v. San Francisco (Feb. 23) states’ rights
West Virginia v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act
North American Coal Corp. v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority of the EPA
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority of the EPA
North Dakota v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority under the EPA
Ruan v. United States (March 1) defenses under the Controlled Substances Act
Kahn v. United States (March 1) defenses under the Controlled Substances Act
Marietta Memorial Hospital v. Davita Inc. (March 1) – Medicare Secondary Payer Act
Egbert v. Boule (March 2) – Bivens, Fourth Amendment

Featuring:

Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General, Louisiana
Robert V. Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Kenji Price, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery
Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell Beato & Missner LLP
Moderator, Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times

---
This event has concluded. Watch above or on our YouTube page.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617478Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyEach month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. Issues presented in the next sitting include the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Controlled...
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (Feb. 22) Indian tribes and state law
Denezpi v. United States (Feb. 22) Indian law
Arizona v. San Francisco (Feb. 23) states’ rights
West Virginia v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act
North American Coal Corp. v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority of the EPA
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority of the EPA
North Dakota v. EPA (Feb. 28) regulatory authority under the EPA
Ruan v. United States (March 1) defenses under the Controlled Substances Act
Kahn v. United States (March 1) defenses under the Controlled Substances Act
Marietta Memorial Hospital v. Davita Inc. (March 1) – Medicare Secondary Payer Act
Egbert v. Boule (March 2) – Bivens, Fourth Amendment

Featuring:

Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General, Louisiana
Robert V. Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Kenji Price, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery
Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell Beato & Missner LLP
Moderator, Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times

---
This event has concluded. Watch above or on our YouTube page.]]>5216administrative law & regulatio,constitution,federalism,fourth amendment,jurisprudence,supreme courtcleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreign-sovereign-and-international-organization-immunity-in-u-s-courts-recent-developments-and-the-way-forward--48729991
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/episode/the-biden-administration-on-policing-what-s-the-verdict--48678726
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/episode/the-mis-use-of-anti-suit-injunctions-in-international-ip-litigation-can-foreign-courts-enjoin-enforcement-of-us-patent-rights--48642996

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/episode/who-runs-the-fdic-in-a-new-administration--48593648
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

---

To register, click the link above.
]]>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

---

To register, click the link above.
]]>3598cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cochran-v-sec-vindicating-article-iii-jurisdiction-over-the-structural-constitution-and-aljs--48576033 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/episode/litigation-update-cert-granted-in-students-for-fair-admission-v-harvard-and-students-for-fair-admission-v-unc-chapel-hill--48562999 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.]]>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/episode/fireside-chat-with-nadine-strossen--48539262Featuring:
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/episode/litigation-update-new-york-s-rent-stabilization-act--48488240 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.]]>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/episode/litigation-update-fec-v-cruz-for-senate--48454756Pursuant 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/episode/the-new-mass-arbitration-just-deserts-or-just-another-abuse--48441575Featuring:

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/episode/litigation-update-investigating-title-vi-and-title-ix-complaints--48440765
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/episode/talks-with-authors-the-great-dissenter-the-story-of-john-marshall-harlan--48440726
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/episode/the-fourth-amendment-at-the-high-court-last-term-in-review-and-the-future--48427180

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/episode/vaccine-policy-who-decides--48393766
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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-january-2022--52617263

• Gallardo v. Marstiller – reimbursement under the Federal Medicaid Act for tort recovery (Jan. 10)
• Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez – immigration (Jan. 11)
• Garland v. Gonzalez – immigration (Jan. 11)
• Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue – tax law (Jan. 12)
• Shurtleff v. Boston – First Amendment – speech and religion (Jan. 18)
• Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation – Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and choice of law (Jan. 18)
• Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate – federal campaign contribution limits and the Free Speech Clause (Jan. 19)
• Concepcion v. United States – First Step Act (Jan. 19)

Featuring:-- Prof. Suzanna Sherry, Herman O. Loewenstein Chair in Law Emerita, Vanderbilt Law School
-- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason Univeristy
-- Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
-- Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & Connelly
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617263Thu, 06 Jan 2022 17:00:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for the fourth episode of the Federalist Society's Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. During the first two weeks of...

• Gallardo v. Marstiller – reimbursement under the Federal Medicaid Act for tort recovery (Jan. 10)
• Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez – immigration (Jan. 11)
• Garland v. Gonzalez – immigration (Jan. 11)
• Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue – tax law (Jan. 12)
• Shurtleff v. Boston – First Amendment – speech and religion (Jan. 18)
• Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation – Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and choice of law (Jan. 18)
• Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate – federal campaign contribution limits and the Free Speech Clause (Jan. 19)
• Concepcion v. United States – First Step Act (Jan. 19)

Featuring:-- Prof. Suzanna Sherry, Herman O. Loewenstein Chair in Law Emerita, Vanderbilt Law School
-- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason Univeristy
-- Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
-- Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & Connelly
-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society]]>5648cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/roiling-the-waters-clean-water-act-navigable-waters-definition-litigation-and-regulatory-developments--48015457 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.]]>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/episode/admitting-expert-evidence-under-rule-702-by-what-standard--47967146The 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/episode/litigation-update-the-osha-vaccine-mandate--47953570
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/episode/talks-with-authors-the-dictatorship-of-woke-capital--47953527
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-whole-woman-s-health-v-jackson--47953517Justice 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-litigation-update-american-hospital-association-v-becerra--47922991Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-new-york-state-rifle-and-pistol-association-v-bruen--47921736Oral 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-carson-v-makin--47873507We 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-organization--47873418This 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/episode/litigation-update-vaccination-mandates--47608166Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-pre-argument-webinar-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-organization--47607849In 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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-december-2021--52617210

• Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation - Medicare (Nov 29)
• Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C. – compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act for victims of discrimination/emotional distress (Nov. 30)
• American Hospital Association v. Becerra – Chevron deference and preclusion, HHS (Nov. 30)
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – abortion (Dec. 1)
• Patel v. Garland – immigration, federal courts jurisdiction (Dec. 6)
• Hughes v. Northwestern University – ERISA, breach of fiduciary duty (Dec. 6)
• United States v. Taylor – Hobbs Act, criminal law, armed robbery (Dec. 7)
• CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe – disparate impact, discrimination, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Dec. 7)
• Carson v. Makin – religious freedom (Dec. 8)
• Shinn v. Ramirez – habeas and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Dec. 8)

Featuring:
-- Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, The University of Notre Dame Law School -- Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
-- Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
-- Brandon J. Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein
-- Moderator: Adam Liptak, The New York Times]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617210Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:56:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyJoin us for the third 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 previous month....

• Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation - Medicare (Nov 29)
• Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C. – compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act for victims of discrimination/emotional distress (Nov. 30)
• American Hospital Association v. Becerra – Chevron deference and preclusion, HHS (Nov. 30)
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – abortion (Dec. 1)
• Patel v. Garland – immigration, federal courts jurisdiction (Dec. 6)
• Hughes v. Northwestern University – ERISA, breach of fiduciary duty (Dec. 6)
• United States v. Taylor – Hobbs Act, criminal law, armed robbery (Dec. 7)
• CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe – disparate impact, discrimination, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Dec. 7)
• Carson v. Makin – religious freedom (Dec. 8)
• Shinn v. Ramirez – habeas and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Dec. 8)

Featuring:
-- Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, The University of Notre Dame Law School -- Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
-- Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
-- Brandon J. Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein
-- Moderator: Adam Liptak, The New York Times]]>5044cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-whole-woman-s-health-v-jackson-and-united-states-v-texas--52464931
A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, 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


* * * * *

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/52464931Fri, 05 Nov 2021 15:54:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyOn November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the...
A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, 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


* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.]]>3585constitution,federalism,federalism & separation of pow,healthcarecleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting--47274983The 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/episode/the-ftc-in-the-current-administration-buckle-your-seatbelts--47274940 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... 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/episode/china-fully-engaged-in-latin-america-what-is-the-u-s-plan--47165339
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/episode/discussion-the-ocr-s-investigation-of-state-mask-mandate-bans--47085289Opponents 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/episode/what-is-the-right-way-forward-on-clemency-reform--47048872Featuring:

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/episode/the-doj-domestic-terrorism-and-school-boards--47048845
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/episode/litigation-update-eviction-moratoria--46979613CDC’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/episode/hud-and-the-disparate-impact-rule--46979564Critics 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/episode/cancel-culture-and-higher-education--46851337
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/episode/redistricting-discussing-the-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act--46833166
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/episode/litigation-update-alabama-association-of-realtors-v-hhs--46763499
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/episode/a-seat-at-the-sitting-october-2021--52617157
Join us for the inaugural 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 previous month. During the first two weeks of October, the Justices will hear eight oral arguments on cases ranging from national security and civil procedure to criminal law and water law. The case names, issues, and dates of argument are listed below:

• Mississippi v. Tennessee – water law and original jurisdiction – October 4
• Wooden v. United States – the Armed Career Criminal Act – October 4
• Brown v. Davenport – Federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 – October 5
• Hemphill v. New York – the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause – October 5
• United States v. Zubaydah – the CIA and the state secret’s privilege – October 6
• Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center – state civil procedure and abortion – October 12
• Thompson v. Clark – procedure for civil claims for deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – October 12
• United States v. Tsarnaev – challenges to the capital conviction of the Boston marathon bomber – October 13
• Babcock v. Kijakazi – civil service pensions and the Social Security Act – October 13

Featuring:
-- Sarah Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
-- Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
-- Kate Comerford Todd, Former Deupty White House Counsel
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52617157Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:51:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyStreamed live on September 30, 2021 Join us for the inaugural 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...
Join us for the inaugural 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 previous month. During the first two weeks of October, the Justices will hear eight oral arguments on cases ranging from national security and civil procedure to criminal law and water law. The case names, issues, and dates of argument are listed below:

• Mississippi v. Tennessee – water law and original jurisdiction – October 4
• Wooden v. United States – the Armed Career Criminal Act – October 4
• Brown v. Davenport – Federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 – October 5
• Hemphill v. New York – the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause – October 5
• United States v. Zubaydah – the CIA and the state secret’s privilege – October 6
• Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center – state civil procedure and abortion – October 12
• Thompson v. Clark – procedure for civil claims for deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – October 12
• United States v. Tsarnaev – challenges to the capital conviction of the Boston marathon bomber – October 13
• Babcock v. Kijakazi – civil service pensions and the Social Security Act – October 13

Featuring:
-- Sarah Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
-- Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
-- Kate Comerford Todd, Former Deupty White House Counsel
]]>5513cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/corporate-social-responsibility-investment-strategy-and-liability-risks--46763428A 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/episode/can-congress-forbid-a-state-from-cutting-its-taxes--46730484The 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/episode/search-warrants-the-attorney-client-privilege-and-federal-criminal-rule-41-g--46710735 Featuring:

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/episode/fireside-chat-alex-pollock-and-fifty-years-without-gold--46656074Featuring:

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/episode/talks-with-authors-woke-inc-inside-corporate-america-s-social-justice-scam--46519419---
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/episode/hijabs-dreads-and-saturdays-off-employees-religious-rights-in-the-workplace--46449098Featuring:

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/episode/litigation-update-scotus-and-the-texas-heartbeat-bill--46449054Featuring:

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/episode/taxation-by-international-consent--46333456
-- 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/episode/litigation-update-brach-v-newsom--46316095Featuring:

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/episode/fireside-chat-professor-george-la-noue--46316053
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/episode/the-biden-administration-s-housing-policy-moves--46303808Secretary 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/episode/vaccine-mandates-and-exemptions-public-universities-private-colleges-and-more--46144968
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/episode/litigation-update-crowe-v-oregon-state-bar--46131256
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/episode/litigation-update-intervarsity-christian-fellowship-usa-v-university-of-iowa-et-al--45969481
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/episode/gender-based-board-quotas-the-fourteenth-amendment-and-meland-v-weber--45955465The 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/episode/a-webinar-on-central-bank-digital-currencies--45951148
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/episode/foreign-policy-in-the-biden-administration--45941601
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/episode/congressional-oversight-and-investigations-new-developments-and-outlook-for-the-117th-congress--45941031
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/episode/opioids-in-2021-enforcement-strategies-and-policy-prescriptions--45939145
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/episode/talks-with-authors-a-dubious-expediency--45859988 “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/episode/private-entities-and-public-concern--45859958But 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/episode/the-implications-of-the-latest-congressional-review-act-disapprovals--45713155
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-transunion-llc-v-ramirez--45669228
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-penneast-pipeline-co-v-new-jersey--45669149Chief 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/episode/severability-and-article-iii-powers--45668992This 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-brnovich-v-democratic-national-convention--45668827Although 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/episode/questions-of-federal-preemption--45639957States 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-nestle-usa-inc-v-doe-et-al--45617751The 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-americans-for-prosperity-v-bonta--45617604Two 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-collins-v-yellen--45617232Justice 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/episode/talks-with-authors-crisis-of-the-two-constitutions--45603392
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-goldman-sachs-group-inc-v-arkansas-teacher-retirement-system--45600086In 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-ncaa-v-alston--45530289Featuring:

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/episode/covid-19-vaccines-and-intellectual-property--45530064
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-holly-frontier-cheyenne-refining-llc-v-renewable-fuels-association--45516361
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/episode/navigating-high-profile-defamation--45515624Featuring:

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/episode/current-status-of-police-reform-legislation--45515186
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-yellen-v-confederated-tribes-of-the-chehalis-reservation--45514685Under 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/episode/talks-with-authors-unsettling-climate-science--45514265
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/episode/what-happened-with-the-texas-energy-grid--45513523
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/episode/limiting-the-right-to-exclude-common-carrier-and-market-dominance--45512151 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.]]>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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-mahanoy-area-school-district-v-b-l--45498319Featuring:

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/episode/title-ix-a-discussion--45498278
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/episode/a-cle-webinar-some-recent-and-ongoing-developments-in-legal-ethics--45495059
* 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-lange-v-california--45494690The 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/episode/recent-evolution-or-revolution-in-federal-trademark-and-unfair-competition-law--45494602
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid--45494525Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-united-states-v-arthrex--45431996Justices 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-california-v-texas--45431050Two 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/episode/mcgirt-one-year-later--45430892The 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/episode/china-policy-and-the-pacific-trade-pact--45430793
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-sanchez-v-mayorkas--45430694Jose 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/episode/talks-with-authors-what-are-the-extent-and-limits-of-executive-power--45401046
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia--45400943Justice 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/episode/china-the-u-s-and-global-climate-policy-cooperation-or-competition--45390078Featuring:

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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-terry-v-united-states--45389126
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/episode/talks-with-authors-religious-liberty-in-crisis--45389004
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/episode/certiorari-and-stinson-deference--45388838The 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/episode/department-of-justice-executive-supervision-or-independence--45388747
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/episode/ofccp-in-the-biden-administration--45359312
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-borden-v-united-states--45346614Featuring:
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/episode/textual-challenges-of-section-230--45346550Featuring:

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/episode/closing-the-digital-divide-the-future-of-broadband-access--45343439
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/episode/free-speech-and-compelled-speech-first-amendment-challenges-to-a-marketplace-of-ideas--45314003But 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/episode/litigation-update-vitolo-v-guzman--45297213
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-van-buren-v-united-states--45261920Former 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/episode/covid-lockdowns-at-the-border--45236682
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-united-states-v-cooley--45201540
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-san-antonio-tx-v-hotels-com--45152552
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/episode/talks-with-authors-administrative-law-theory-and-fundamentals-an-integrated-approach--45141252
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/episode/the-equal-rights-amendment-then-and-now--45136975Several 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/episode/litigation-update-meriwether-v-hartop--45127045
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/episode/h-r-1-the-for-the-people-act-explained--45068706
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/episode/a-discussion-students-for-fair-admissions-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college--45064992 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.]]>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/episode/infrastructure-broadband-and-the-new-administration--45035699Featuring:

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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-cic-services-llc-v-internal-revenue-service--45035408Joining 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/episode/a-conversation-with-commissioner-brian-d-quintenz-of-the-commodity-futures-trading-commission--45029158
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-edwards-v-vannoy--45011096On 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-bp-p-l-c-v-mayor-and-city-council-of-baltimore--45011025
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-caniglia-v-strom--44914752Featuring:
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/episode/litigation-update-brown-v-becerra--44898267
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-jones-v-mississippi--44771746Featuring:
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/episode/litigation-update-wisconsin-equal-protection-and-race-based-scholarships--44754852
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/episode/litigation-update-johnson-johnson-v-ingham--44683294
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/episode/artificial-intelligence-and-bias--44662533
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-terry-v-united-states--44650900Congress 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/episode/litigation-update-coalition-for-thomas-jefferson-high-v-fairfax-county-school-board--44647092
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-penneast-pipeline-llc-v-new-jersey--44632595In 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-carr-v-saul--44631286 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.]]>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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-mahanoy-area-school-district-v-b-l--44623873Joining 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-united-states-v-palomar-santiago--44623753In 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-americans-for-prosperity-foundation-v-becerra--44623683
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-hollyfrontier-cheyenne-refining-v-renewable-fuels-association--44546726In 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/episode/the-antitrust-paradox-a-conversation-with-sen-mike-lee-and-robert-bork-jr--44520974Featuring:

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/episode/revisiting-new-york-times-v-sullivan--44516039Featuring:

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/episode/litigation-update-ohio-v-yellen--44514974
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-minerva-surgical-inc-v-hologic-inc--44511804Supreme 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-amg-capital-management-v-ftc--44498552
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/episode/international-corruption-and-the-venezuela-indictments-the-case-of-alex-saab--44497068
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/episode/transgender-policy-in-the-biden-administration--44496802Join 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-yellen-v-confederated-tribes-of-the-chehalis-reservation--44455539Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-states-v-gary--44455384
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-city-of-san-antonio-texas-v-hotels-com--44455280
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-sanchez-v-mayorkas--44437762Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-google-v-oracle--44424345A panel of experts joined 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
]]>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 joined 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
]]>3340cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/would-a-wealth-tax-pass-constitutional-muster--44424100
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/episode/original-meaning-or-framers-intent-a-new-book-and-an-age-old-debate--44396953Joining 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-florida-v-georgia--44396707Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-facebook-v-duguid--44335618
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-webinar-fcc-v-prometheus-radio-project--44317623The 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/episode/a-discussion-of-aba-model-rule-8-4-g--44275661
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-ford-motor-company-v-montana-eighth-judicial-dist-court--44275606
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/episode/nation-state-cybercrime-perspectives-on-the-problem-and-response-with-two-former-doj-national-security-officials--44242307
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-brownback-v-king--44209744
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/episode/litigation-update-jack-phillips-and-masterpiece-cakeshop--44204912Joining 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-ncaa-v-alston--44165841
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-goldman-sachs-group-inc-v-arkansas-teacher-retirement-system--44147703
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-transunion-llc-v-ramirez--44132151
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/episode/doctrine-briefing-the-ministerial-exception--44131509
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-torres-v-madrid--44117870
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-caniglia-v-strom--44101446The 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/episode/when-the-government-changes-sides-in-ongoing-litigation--44068620
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/episode/book-review-unshackled-freeing-america-s-k-12-education-system--44067836
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 Hardiman join education law expert Nicole Garnett to review the new book.

Register here to attend live

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

---
This Zoom discussion is open for public registration. See above link.
]]>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...
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 Hardiman join education law expert Nicole Garnett to review the new book.

Register here to attend live

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

---
This Zoom discussion is open for public registration. See above link.
]]>3607cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/debate-the-outer-reaches-of-the-unitary-executive-theory-and-the-termination-of-eeoc-general-counsel-sharon-gustafson--44066916
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-united-states-v-cooley--44050455Joining 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/episode/ict-supply-chain-security-a-panel-discussion--44038445
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/episode/ict-supply-chain-security-a-panel-discussion--44038441What 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid--44035770Petitioners 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-federal-republic-of-germany-v-philipp--44035071
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/episode/ricky-vaughn-s-prosecution-and-the-first-amendment--43952844Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-uzuegbunam-v-preczewski--43863207John 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/episode/litigation-update-apache-stronghold-v-united-states--43862355Apache 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service-v-sierra-club--43831976
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-pereida-v-wilkinson--43816738
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-lange-v-california--43810758In 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-brnovich-v-democratic-national-committee--43757656
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-carr-v-saul--43757590Profs. 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-united-states-v-arthrex-inc--43724789Profs. 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/episode/law-and-corporate-social-responsibility--43704464
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/episode/undue-delay-or-due-process-does-the-due-process-clause-require-a-prompt-post-seizure-hearing-when-the-government-seizes-an-individual-s-pro--43704081
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/episode/fireside-chat-with-bilal-sayyed-former-ftc-director-office-of-policy-planning--43624309Featuring:
--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 21:25:00 +0000The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group and Regulatory Transparency Project was pleased to host this fireside discussion between Mr. Bilal Sayyed, most-recently Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office...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/episode/china-s-treatment-of-turkic-muslims--43624173
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/episode/the-telecommunications-act-at-25-years-a-panel-discussion--43545111
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/episode/the-injunction-presumption-revisiting-ebay-v-mercexchange--43351748
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/episode/virtual-currencies-and-the-rule-of-law--43351379
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/episode/prayer-and-jury-service-united-states-v-brown--43309941The 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/episode/the-potential-for-the-passage-of-the-pro-act-in-2021-and-related-issues--43305139
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/episode/book-review-the-second-founding-an-introduction-to-the-fourteenth-amendment--43272318In 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/episode/aba-model-rule-8-4-g-in-pennsylvania--43234580Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-webinar-fcc-v-prometheus-radio-project--43234530A 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/episode/the-congressional-review-act-first-branch-gets-the-last-word--43234474Featuring:
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/episode/u-s-and-the-middle-east-trump-to-biden--43069815
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/episode/book-review-believe-in-people-bottom-up-solutions-for-a-top-down-world--43047380
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-bp-p-l-c-v-mayor-and-city-council-of-baltimore--43047284
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/episode/the-federal-vacancies-reform-act-and-implications-for-presidential-transitions--43029584 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.
]]>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/episode/the-myths-and-facts-regarding-the-epa-s-benefit-cost-analysis-and-science-transparency-rules--43029739
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/episode/legacy-of-the-unalienable-rights-commission-discussion-with-dr-peter-berkowitz-director-of-the-policy-planning-office-u-s-department-of--43029415
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/episode/litigation-update-bp-p-l-c-v-mayor-and-city-council-of-baltimore--42995424Indiana 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-amg-capital-management-v-ftc--42993215
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-uzuegbunam-v-preczewski--42933775Featuring:
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/episode/capital-conversations-craig-leen-director-of-office-of-federal-contract-compliance-programs-ofccp-u-s-department-of-labor--42933623
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/episode/clean-water-the-rule-of-law-recapping-4-years-of-reform-and-the-path-ahead--42438272
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/episode/international-reference-pricing-and-negotiation-yes-or-no--42849456
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/episode/litigation-update-restoring-the-lost-privileges-or-immunities-clause--42614462Tune 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/episode/analyzing-the-epa-s-draft-memorandum-on-maui-v-hawaii-wildlife-fund--42614394
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-texas-v-new-mexico--42559272Featuring:
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/episode/chairman-ajit-pai-s-tenure-at-the-fcc-fireside-chat-and-panel-discussion--42559247
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/episode/capital-conversations-amb-robert-lighthizer-united-states-trade-representative--42559087
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/episode/court-packing-term-limits-and-more-the-debate-over-reforming-the-judiciary--42554350
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/episode/the-usmca-and-the-rapid-response-enforcement-mechanism-enforcing-compliance-with-labor-laws-through-free-trade-agreements--42554068
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-united-states-v-briggs--42539269Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-rutledge-v-pharmaceutical-care-management-association--42537934
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-tanzin-v-tanvir--42520470Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-henry-schein-inc-v-archer-and-white-sales-inc--42520578Featuring:
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/episode/the-implications-and-importance-of-cic-services-llc-v-internal-revenue-service--42487164We 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-republic-of-hungary-v-simon-and-federal-republic-of-germany-v-philipp--42486681In 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-mnuchin-v-collins--42486638Featuring:
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/episode/capital-conversations-hester-peirce-commissioner-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission--42486751https://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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-facebook-inc-v-duguid--42438225Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-roman-catholic-diocese-of-brooklyn-v-cuomo--42438171
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-edwards-v-vannoy--42398368Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-nestle-usa-inc-v-doe-i--42381207Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-van-buren-v-united-states--42280672Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-trump-v-new-york--42280607
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/episode/critical-race-theory-fighting-racism-or-racism-masquerading-as-remedy--42142978Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-arguments-teleforum-california-v-texas--42142195Featuring:
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/episode/the-nlrb-what-s-the-latest-and-what-to-expect-for-2021--42142755
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/episode/the-annual-mike-lewis-memorial-teleforum-the-identity-crisis-at-the-international-criminal-court--42142841
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/episode/book-review-the-property-species-mine-yours-and-the-human-mind--42142276
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia--42021253The 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-borden-v-united-states--42021176Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-brownback-v-king--42021032
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-jones-v-mississippi--42020985
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service-v-sierra-club--41831676Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-preview-van-buren-v-united-states--41831534

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/episode/iran-snapback--41831629
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/episode/capital-conversations-hon-beth-a-williams-assistant-attorney-general-united-states-department-of-justice--41831586
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/episode/catholic-judges-and-the-death-penalty--41778361
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/episode/should-the-federal-government-be-in-the-5g-business--41701508
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/episode/united-states-v-google--41701756
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/episode/supreme-court-criminal-law-roundup-a-look-back-and-a-look-ahead--41606667Featuring:
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/episode/the-executive-branch-the-supreme-court-and-more--41606558Featuring:
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/episode/born-in-the-usa-a-debate-on-the-meaning-of-the-constitution-s-citizenship-clauses--41570712
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-torres-v-madrid--41556226Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-united-states-v-collins--41556096Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-ford-motor-company-v-montana-eighth-judicial-district-court--41554166Featuring:
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/episode/the-economics-and-ethics-of-insider-trading-reform--41556465
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/episode/the-staggers-act-turns-forty-lessons-learned-from-railroad-regulation--41555906
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-pereida-v-barr--41555821
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/episode/capital-conversations-hon-paul-j-ray-oira-administrator--41555746
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/episode/book-review-america-in-the-world-a-history-of-u-s-diplomacy-and-foreign-policy--41554117
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-google-v-oracle--41461799
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-tanzin-v-tanvir--41461774This 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-texas-v-new-mexico--41461730Featuring:
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/episode/supply-chain-security-and-global-power-competition-should-the-united-states-get-china-out-of-its-supply-chain--41461843Join 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/episode/appointments-clause-back-in-the-supreme-court-patent-office-judges-as-principal-or-inferior-officers--41383076All 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-arguments-teleforum-carney-v-adams--41383100
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/episode/litigation-update-united-nurses-and-allied-professionals-v-nlrb--41363872Mr. 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/episode/challenging-michigan-executive-orders-related-to-covid--41363456
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/episode/religious-liberty-at-the-supreme-court-previewing-the-new-term--41363416
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/episode/usmca-in-practice-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-us-mexico-relations--41363767
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/episode/adjudicating-employment-discrimination-in-federal-contracting-is-ofccp-regulating-without-authority--41363616
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/episode/race-and-policing--41363522
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/episode/patent-litigation-in-the-western-district-of-texas-an-afternoon-discussion-with-judge-alan-albright-and-a-new-take-on-patent-case-procedure--41363307
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/episode/book-review-supreme-disorder-judicial-nominations-and-the-politics-of-america-s-highest-court--41243804
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/episode/mass-arbitrations-challenges-benefits-and-proposals-for-improvement--41243867
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/episode/evaluating-the-epa-s-proposals-to-retain-the-existing-particulate-matter-and-ozone-standards--41243693
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/episode/the-law-and-economics-of-municipal-broadband--41061981
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/episode/rights-and-wrongs-the-golden-state-killer-and-genetic-investigations--40930831
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/episode/special-topics-in-religious-liberty-series-2-sex-abuse-litigation-and-chapter-11-issues-for-religious-organizations--40898185
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/episode/iran-turns-east-with-china-partnership-should-the-west-respond--40897862
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/episode/the-false-claims-act-the-cares-act-and-covid-19-an-enforcement-overview--40654576
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/episode/special-topics-in-religious-liberty-series-1-recent-and-upcoming-supreme-court-cases--40654476
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/episode/litigation-update-desrosiers-et-al-v-gov-baker-a-conversation-with-ncla-s-michael-degrandis--40634294
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/episode/free-speech-in-the-digital-era-section-230-and-the-federal-communications-commission--40634256
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/episode/home-economics-real-estate-exchanges-and-the-future-of-homebuying--40541825
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/episode/ftc-v-qualcomm-the-ninth-circuit-on-tech-antitrust--40541801
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/episode/retooling-energy-regulations-who-decides--40474254
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/episode/covid-19-and-religious-matters--40324289
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/episode/corpus-linguistics-in-legal-interpretation--40284558
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/episode/voter-fraud-and-voter-registration--40284518
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/episode/the-commission-on-unalienable-rights-report-human-rights-and-u-s-foreign-policy--40174403
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/episode/minutes-to-midnight-or-teeing-up-a-second-term--40157622
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/episode/capital-conversations-covid-19-and-fda-medical-legal-and-regulatory-perspectives--40127326
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/episode/covid-19-labor-and-employment-teleforum-series-2--40127257
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/episode/the-u-s-and-the-world-trade-organization-wto-predictions-for-what-comes-next-a-virtual-conversation-with-stephen-vaughn--40127200
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/episode/the-true-extent-of-executive-power--40074557Featuring:
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/episode/arizona-covid-litigation-a-challenge-to-executive-authority--40059528Featuring:
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/episode/40-years-later-nepa-regulation-update--40022719
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/episode/religious-liberty-at-the-supreme-court-the-2020-term-and-beyond--40015608Mark 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/episode/international-criminal-justice--40003651
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/episode/federalization-of-elections--39920218
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/episode/police-unions-practically-speaking--39921671
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-v-booking-com-b-v--39921645Featuring:
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/episode/new-labor-department-rule-taking-on-esg-investment-risk-to-american-retirement-security--39868635 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


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39868635Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:03:33 +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


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>2884cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/innovation-in-diagnostics-and-patent-subject-matter-eligibility--39868603
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/episode/covid-19-labor-and-employment-teleforum-series-1--39868355
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/episode/covid-19-business-closures-firearms-dealers-and-the-second-amendment--39813869
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-department-of-homeland-security-v-thuraissigiam--39813902
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/episode/prosecuting-dictators-the-indictment-of-nicolas-maduro--39813786
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-mcgirt-v-oklahoma--39778677Featuring:
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/episode/capital-conversations-michael-r-pompeo-u-s-secretary-of-state--39472752https://api.spreaker.com/episode/39472752Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:00:00 +0000The Federalist Society1627cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-problems-of-preservation-how-much-evidence-is-too-much--39422990At 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance--39421351Devin 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-our-lady-of-guadalupe-school-v-morrissey-berru--38339688Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-little-sisters-of-the-poor-v-pennsylvania--38345518
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-the-limits-of-robocalls-barr-v-american-association-of-political-consultants-inc--38061692Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-co-dept-of-state-v-baca-and-chiafalo-v-wa--38015302Featuring:
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/episode/book-review-the-dubious-morality-of-modern-administrative-law-by-richard-epstein--38012380
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue--37219492Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-usaid-v-alliance-for-open-society-international-inc--37094508Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-june-medical-services-llc-v-russo--36362322Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-seila-law-llc-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-cfpb--36361909 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]]>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/episode/executive-power-and-more--36362304
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-liu-v-sec--34920455Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-united-states-forest-service-v-cowpasture-river-preservation-association--34920677
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/episode/business-interruption-insurance-and-policy-exceptions-for-the-covid-19-pandemic--32632146
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-department-of-homeland-security-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california--32441023Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-title-vii-cases--32441007Featuring:
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/episode/book-review-free-to-move-foot-voting-migration-and-political-freedom--31696169
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/episode/world-politics-after-brexit-a-conversation-with-nigel-farage--31136546
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/episode/covid-19-and-suing-the-chinese-communist-party-ccp-and-the-chinese-government--31696079
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/episode/the-antitrust-failing-firm-defense-in-the-wake-of-the-covid-19-crisis--30439093
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/episode/book-review-marijuana-federalism-uncle-sam-and-mary-jane--30294548Featuring:
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/episode/lightning-strikes-a-successful-appeal-in-the-opioid-mdl-and-whether-we-will-see-more-interlocutory-appeals-in-mdls--30294589
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/episode/capital-conversations-sonny-perdue-u-s-secretary-of-agriculture--30436441
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/episode/the-insurrection-act-executive-authority-and-more--30165107
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/episode/the-end-of-deference-how-states-are-leading-a-sometimes-quiet-revolution-against-administrative-deference-doctrines--29915381
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/episode/just-compensation-a-suggestion-or-a-requirement--29898548Featuring:
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/episode/the-chinese-government-s-record-of-human-rights-marking-the-june-4th-anniversary-of-tiananmen-square--29898637
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/episode/british-turmoil-after-brexit--29574310
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/episode/federal-liability-limitations-for-covid-19-exposure-claims--29571317
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/episode/capital-conversations-brent-j-mcintosh-under-secretary-international-affairs-u-s-department-of-the-treasury--29026006
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/episode/litigation-update-associational-privacy-at-the-supreme-court--29025749Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-county-of-maui-hawaii-v-hawaii-wildlife-fund--29025048Featuring:
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/episode/diversity-and-elimination-of-bias-cle-teleforum-an-update-to-the-harvard-case-and-the-meaning-of-diversity-in-a-multi-racial-era--29022111Written 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/episode/an-update-on-patents-and-antitrust--29137781
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/episode/what-s-next-in-the-flynn-case--29026111
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/episode/a-special-relationship-u-k-and-u-s-trade-deal-on-the-horizon--29026198
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/episode/covid-19-property-rights-do-government-actions-in-response-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic-create-compensable-takings--28905436Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-atlantic-richfield-co-v-christian--28902125Featuring: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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-co-dept-of-state-v-baca-and-chiafalo-v-wa--28902005Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-ny-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york--28906462Featuring:
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/episode/nuclear-arms-agreements-and-human-rights--28903195
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance--28901970
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-mcgirt-v-oklahoma--28901888
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/episode/the-restoring-internet-freedom-order-on-remand-next-steps-for-the-federal-communications-commission--28901739
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-our-lady-of-guadalupe-school-v-morrissey-berru--28822636Eight 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-kelly-v-united-states--28818562Steve 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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-thryv-inc-v-click-to-call-technologies-lp--28818446While 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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-barr-v-american-association-of-political-consultants-inc--28818217Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-usaid-v-alliance-for-open-society-international-inc--28818118Featuring:
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/episode/junk-science-and-legal-testimony-in-a-covid-world--28822569
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/episode/drive-in-churches-and-the-constitution-balancing-the-religious-belief-in-corporate-worship-and-health-concerns-related-to-covid-19--28818606
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-united-states-v-sineneng-smith--28818519
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-little-sisters-of-the-poor-saints-peter-and-paul-home-v-pennsylvania--28818301
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/episode/legal-implications-of-the-international-criminal-court-s-decision-to-investigate-americans--28817813
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/episode/courthouse-steps-oral-argument-teleforum-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-v-booking-com--28817439
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/episode/covid-liability-issues--28062671Featuring:
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/episode/federalism-covid-19-and-the-administrative-state--28062550Featuring:
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/episode/capital-conversations-eric-s-dreiband-assistant-attorney-general-civil-rights-division-department-of-justice--29571267
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/episode/address-by-oira-administrator-hon-paul-j-ray--28062953
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/episode/executive-orders-on-guidance-implications-and-next-steps--28062627
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/episode/unitary-executive-and-independent-agencies--28062262
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/episode/nationwide-injunctions--28061307
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/episode/section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act--28072656
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/episode/fcpa-enforcement-in-the-trump-administration-and-beyond--27896589Featuring:
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/episode/view-from-the-ground-level-practical-issues-re-ppp-implementation-a-conversation-with-banking-attorneys-around-the-country--27896648
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/episode/covid-19-state-power-and-civil-liberties-an-historical-perspective--27430376Featuring:
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/episode/courthouse-steps-decision-teleforum-ramos-v-louisiana--27429744Featuring:
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/episode/broadcast-journalism-and-the-first-amendment-a-conversation-with-the-fcc-s-general-counsel--27414450 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


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/27414450Fri, 15 May 2020 14:08:48 +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... 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


This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.]]>3807cleanfullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/surviving-covid-19-the-small-business-perspective--27430315
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/episode/the-singapore-convention-on-mediation-what-it-means-for-international-litigation-and-arbitration--27430257
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/episode/the-pros-and-cons-of-new-york-s-bail-reform--27427724
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/episode/capital-conversations-noah-phillips-commissioner-federal-trade-commission--27418121
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/episode/working-from-home-cyber-hygiene-in-the-covid-crisis--27415245
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/episode/china-taiwan-relations-and-international-law-in-a-post-covid-world--27414249
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/episode/watching-the-terror-watchlist--27414046
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/episode/covid-19-actions-taken-by-the-federal-reserve--27414008
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/episode/the-national-labor-relations-board-s-new-election-rules-do-they-protect-or-undermine-employee-free-choice--27413940
(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/episode/is-there-a-police-power-exception-to-the-fifth-amendment-s-just-compensation-clause--27167507Featuring:
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/episode/next-steps-in-justice-reform-after-the-first-step-act-amid-covid-19-crisis--27167641
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/episode/capital-conversations-uttam-dhillon-acting-administrator-of-the-drug-enforcement-administration--27167623
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/episode/religious-freedom-in-a-pandemic--27167602
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/episode/the-importance-of-economic-freedom-during-and-after-the-coronavirus-pandemic--27167564
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]]>3830cleanfull