FedSoc Forums

The 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 could interfere with the mask seal. Plaintiff, Pastor Alexander Smith requested a religious accommodation to wear a short beard, arguing that growing the beard was an exercise of his faith and that wearing the mask was not part of his technician role in the department. This request was denied, citing safety concerns, prompting Smith to pursue legal action, alleging First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Title VII violations. However, the District Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of the fire department.
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

E.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. Several provisions within it exempt certain industries from some requirements, and this case deals with the burden of proof on a corporation to prove that an employee should be exempt from these rules.
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

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.

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

Chiles 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 practice or treatment that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” Noncompliance could lead to fines, suspensions, or removals of licenses. Kaley Chiles, a professional counselor challenges this law, explaining that she does not necessarily seek to change patients’ sexual orientations but rather assist them when they seek help and counsel due to unwanted attractions. Chiles is a practicing Christian and works with clients seeking to be guided through Christian principles. She claims that MCTL violates her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
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

In 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 same time, Congress is considering the “Credit Card Competition Act,” which purports to promote competition in the credit card network space. Join us for a discussion of these topics and their implications for consumers, competition, and the economy as well as Capital One’s proposed acquisition of Discover.
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.

In 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 millions and millions of acres to protect broader arrays of "objects." Recently, President Biden set aside 3 million acres in Utah to protect a collection of such objects -- among them: landscapes, regions, ecosystems, habitats, and animals.
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.

Last 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 of statutes that are “silent or ambiguous” without affording an agency deference.
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.

The 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 William Saunders, Professor and Co-director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Catholic University of America. Please join us for this latest installment which will look at recent developments in religious liberty litigation and ahead to the Supreme Court’s October term.
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

When 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 statute? The debate surrounding these issues has only gotten livelier with recent Federal Circuit decisions and a bi-partisan patent eligibility bill working its way through Congress. With this backdrop, please join us for an exciting discussion about whether patent law has run afoul of the basic precepts of textualism and statutory construction, and what, if anything, should be done about it.
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.

Garland 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" --readily convertible weapons parts or receiver kits-- exceeds the mandate of the same. The ATF argues it simply clarified what had already been true in response to the notable rise in the use of ghost guns. The challengers, including both two individual gun owners and a gun advocacy organization, challenged the rule, alleging it exceeded the statutory authority granted to the ATF. The Court is now set to consider whether such kits constitute "firearms" and/or "frames or receivers" as regulated under the Act.
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