FedSoc Forums

What 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 interests interact with state police powers? These and other questions will be discussed on our Teleforum.

Featuring:
-- Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day

Join 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, International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury

In 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 federal form listing major donors. That document -- Schedule B to IRS Form 990 -- is provided directly to the IRS, and its privacy is guaranteed by federal law. The California Attorney General asserted that her office would also protect donors' privacy, and that the information was necessary to pursue law enforcement duties. The American for Prosperity Foundation and others assert the evidence at trial indicated that donor information was publicly available, and that California authorities seldom used it for the reasons stated. The Supreme Court has been asked to review the Attorney General's policy, and has called for the views of the Solicitor General in what could prove a seminal case concerning associational privacy.
Featuring:
Mr. Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Mr. Allen Dickerson, Legal Director, Institute for Free Speech
Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Vice President, Policy & Litigation, Common Cause
Mr. Derek Shaffer, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The 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 opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Alito. Justice Alito also filed a dissent.
Featuring:
Glenn Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Electronic 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, 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.

Join 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 for patent infringement suffice.

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

Gen. 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 Robert Mueller. Recently, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that the materiality of Flynn's statements was in doubt, and that the case being developed fell short of the standards the Justice Department historically follows in dealing with defendants and potential defendants. US District Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is handling the case, has said he will hold a hearing on whether to grant the motion to dismiss, and -- since both parties support the motion -- has appointed an amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, to present the case against granting it.

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

The 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 been the concept of a new trade deal between the United States and the United Kingdom. Just recently, trade negotiations have begun in full between the long-time allies, and many are hoping that a new trade deal could greatly aid the economies of both countries, especially with the economic fallout of COVID-19 still unclear.

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

Numerous 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 under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. On the other side, state governments contend that no compensation is due, because the shutdowns are exercises of state police power to protect public health broadly. This teleforum will consider the extent to which takings claims against coronavirus shutdown orders have any validity.
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.

On 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 Act (CERCLA). Dozens of Montana landowners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance over its dumping of tons of heavy metals, arsenic, and lead on their properties—pollution which led EPA to designate a 300 square mile area as a Superfund site. In addition to compensation, the landowners sought remediation damages to pay for a cleanup beyond that previously ordered by EPA. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the landowners’ case cannot proceed until they first obtain EPA approval for their cleanup plan. That narrow holding sidestepped the thornier issue, whether CERCLA preempts the landowners’ state common law claims. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation is inconsistent with the statute’s text, undermines federalism and property rights, and tees up difficult constitutional questions. Jonathan Wood will discuss the decision in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, its implications, and the questions left unanswered by it.
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.