FedSoc Events

This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.
These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?
Featuring:

Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova University
Hon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Hon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA Administrator
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

The importance of judicial selection and confirmation is now a point of emphasis for all presidential administrations. In 2025 and going forward, what principles and considerations will govern judicial selection (and confirmation) in a new administration, with a new Senate majority. These and other important Article III issues will be considered by our panel of experts.
Featuring:

Mr. Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel, Office of the Republican Minority Leader
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Above the Law
Prof. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

The “disparate impact” approach to civil rights enforcement makes it presumptively illegal to use selection criteria that result in statistical disparities based on, inter alia, race or ethnicity. It is no defense that the use of a challenged criterion had no discriminatory motive; the only defense is if its use meets some “necessity” standard. The inevitable result is to encourage race-based decision-making when selection criteria are chosen and implemented. Yet using this approach is widespread and found in numerous statutes and regulations. Given the Supreme Court’s decision striking down racial preferences in SFFA v. Harvard, what impact will this have on the disparate-impact approach?
Featuring:

Mr. Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project
Mr. Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Hon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

The future of the national bank system is increasingly uncertain as federal regulators have incorporated DEI and ESG into bank supervision, creating tensions with some states. Several states have responded by attempting to ban such practices, potentially creating conflicting legal duties for banks. Meanwhile, other states are challenging interest rate exportation and other aspects of state preemption, which arguably undermines the value of national charters and hampers the ability of banks and fintechs to scale nationwide. The Supreme Court's recent overruling of the Chevron doctrine adds another layer of uncertainty as federal regulators will receive reduced deference. Do these conflicts signal the end of national bank charters, and are we headed toward a red-state/blue-state banking system? This panel will explore these questions.
Featuring:

Mr. John Court, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & COO, Bank Policy Institute
Mr. Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers’ Research
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

By the time of the National Lawyers Convention, the American electorate will have decided on a new president and, with him or her, a new administration. What will a Donald Trump or Kamala Harris administration mean for American business? How will the new administration handle corporate tax, federal regulations, agency guidance, antitrust questions, and helming the administrative state in a post-Chevron world? How should American companies, and their in-house counsels, prepare for the next four years?
Featuring:

Hon. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Iowa
Mr. Martine Cicconi, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Executive Vice President of Global Governance, Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary, Walmart Inc.

Over the past four years, state attorneys general have brought many significant lawsuits against the Biden administration. From border enforcement and student loan forgiveness, to Title IX rules and environmental regulations, states have brought the executive branch into court over divisive legal questions. Some of these suits remain active. This panel of experts will recap the most notable cases of the past presidential term and discuss what the recent election could mean for the future.
Featuring:

Mr. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, Ohio
Mr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson Grimsley
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, Tennessee
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The generation of political leaders that produced the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Era no doubt saw themselves as working to make one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc. matter less to one’s future prospects. And in many ways, they clearly succeeded. They would almost certainly be surprised and disappointed to learn how much emphasis those factors are still getting. Why has this happened? Is the problem that our focus on issues of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, gender, etc. has gone too far? Or is the problem that we haven’t yet focused on them enough? To what extent has the law helped create the current state of affairs? How can the law help us move in a better direction?
Featuring:

Mr. Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Prof. Tyler Austin Harper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Bates College
Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Contributing Editor, City Journal
Moderator: Hon. Paul Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?
Featuring

Mr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Ms. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Mr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Mr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Moderator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Last year, the Supreme Court decided the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA). The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision has been interpreted broadly as outlawing race affirmative action in college and university admissions. However, in footnote 4 of the opinion, the Court indicated that its decision “does not address the issue” of race-based admissions programs at the military academies. Shortly after the release of SFFA, Students for Fair Admissions sued both West Point and the Naval Academy to directly challenge their admissions programs. This webinar will provide a litigation update in these cases and explore the ramifications of the exemption to the SFFA holding created by footnote 4 of the opinion.
Featuring:

John E. McGlothlin, Special Projects Officer, National Guard Bureau, Office of the Inspector General; Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Global Campus
John J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy
(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. In addition, in 1972, The Higher Education Act was amended to prohibit the exclusion of any person from any federally funded educational program or activity on the basis of sex. These seemingly simple prohibitions have recently been the focus of considerable attention. How, for example, do they apply to individuals whose gender identity is seemingly at odds with their biological sex? What does the Bostock decision say about their situation? Is a federally funded school required to assign bathrooms, showers, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters based on gender identity? Is an employer required to do so? If not required, is it permissible for these entities to do so under the law? What about athletics? What about prisons? And quite apart from what the law is now, what should it be? What about what is often called “gender affirming” treatment? Should a parent be able to obtain such treatment for a child? Should a parent be able to refuse it? What is the role of schools? Should the government be obligated to fund “gender affirming” care for prisoners or individuals on relief? Finally, does or should the law require others to accept a person’s preferred gender identity—at work, at school, elsewhere—and/or adjust their speech to reflect that identity?
Featuring:

Prof. Doriane Coleman, Thomas L. Perkins Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke Law School
Ms. Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Hon. Andrea Lucas, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Prof. Sarath Sanga, Professor of Law & Co-Director, Center for the Study of Corporate Law, Yale Law School
Mr. D. John Sauer, Principle, James Otis Law Group LLC; Former Solicitor General, Missouri
Moderator: Ms. Jennifer Braceras, Founder, Independent Women’s Law Center; Former Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights