FedSoc Forums

In 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 to that litigation. This seemingly boundless duty to preserve, unmoored from our legal traditions, all but abandons the common law of discovery.
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.

May 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 decided today by the Supreme Court, and discussed in today’s Courthouse Steps Teleforum call.
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.

In 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 remanded. Justice Alito's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ginsburg. Daniel Blomberg joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.
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.

In 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 Kniffin joins us to discuss the decision and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Eric N. Kniffin, Partner, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

In 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 (3-1-3-2) decision, the Court concluded that the statute unconstitutionally imposed a content-based limitation on speech by generally banning robocalls but creating an exception for calls to collect a debt "owed to or guaranteed by the United States." Thus, the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC), which wished to make political robocalls, was prohibited from doing so by the statute. The Court held that it was unconstitutional to treat calls differently depending on their content, and it remedied the violation by eliminating the exception for calls to collect a government debt. In the end, the AAPC convinced the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, but was not able to convince the Court that its own speech should be protected. Instead, we now have a ban on robocalls that applies regardless of content to both debt collection and political speech.
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.

In 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 the winner of the statewide popular vote, and states may replace electors who attempt to vote for someone else. We can expect to see more states institute "faithless electors" rules for the 2020 presidential election and beyond.
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.

Richard 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 legitimized the reach of different administrative agencies by giving them far more control over substantive issues through different forms of judicial deference to agency interpretation, such as Auer and Chevron deference. Throughout his book, Epstein effectively frames how Auer deference, Chevron deference, and the Court’s major decision, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, led to the courts becoming “too deferential on questions of law and too interventionist on matters of fact.” Epstein asserts that the administrative state has grown far too powerful for us to mitigate its power significantly. However, he suggests that we can initiate a minor constitutional revolution in administrative law by turning away from the judicial language that has delegated power and abandoned procedural protection by returning “the law to its original design, meaning, and structure.” One way this can be achieved, according to Epstein, is by simply following the original text of the Administrative Procedures Act and avoiding the judicial language that has complicated its meaning since its implementation in 1946.

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

On 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 joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Kagan as to Part I. Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion. Michael Bindas joins us to discuss the decisions and its implications.
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.

On 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 justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications.
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.