FedSoc Forums

The 2018-2019 Supreme Court term saw the continued evolution of Criminal Law Jurisprudence. Over a dozen cases were decided that will serve to shape and guide criminal law jurisprudence moving forward, on both the State and Federal level. Several prominent legal experts join us to recap the influential Criminal Law related Supreme Court decisions of 2019. Among the cases discussed will be, Timbs v. Indiana, Madison v. Alabama, Bucklew v. Precythe, United States v. Haymond, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, and many more.
Featuring:
Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Dean Mazzone, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Massachusetts Attorney General

Companies are increasingly resorting to the bankruptcy system to resolve mass tort litigation. Recent examples include bankruptcies filed by defendants facing significant talc and opioid-related litigation. In addition, the Department of Justice and others have brought renewed attention to the use of the bankruptcy system to resolve asbestos-related liability, concerned that the system frequently results in the payment of claims that lack merit. These developments have spurred debate regarding the use of bankruptcy in general to resolve mass tort liability, whether the system can be improved, and whether it is superior to traditional tort litigation. Please join Professor Ralph Brubaker, Professor S. Todd Brown and Dan Prieto for a discussion of this important topic.
Featuring:
Prof. Ralph Brubaker, Carl L. Vacketta Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Prof. S. Todd Brown, Professor of Law and the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, University at Buffalo School of Law
Dan Prieto, Partner, DLA Piper Global Law Firm

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.

Nearly 18 years after its overwhelming enactment by Congress, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) continues to generate controversy. Presidents Bush and Obama have invoked the AUMF as legal authority for significant military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as well as smaller attacks against terrorists outside the Middle East. President Trump has continued this practice. Congressional critics unsuccessfully have sought to repeal or amend the AUMF because of worries that it provides the executive branch with a blank check to start new wars.
John Bellinger and John Yoo, who both worked on the AUMF’s original passage, will discuss the current controversies over the AUMF.
Featuring:
John B. Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at 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.

For over half a century, federal law and most states have regulated secretly recording speech over phone lines and in person by the government and private citizens. Recently, some of the most restrictive of these laws have been struck down on First Amendment grounds, and even some longstanding, widespread provisions are now subject to litigation. Steve Klein, partner at Statecraft PLLC and counsel to James O’Keefe, Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action Fund in several of these lawsuits, will discuss the constitutional and policy considerations of secret recording by citizens.
Featuring:

Steve Klein, Partner, Statecraft PLLC

Nearly 18 years after its overwhelming enactment by Congress, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) continues to generate controversy. Presidents Bush and Obama have invoked the AUMF as legal authority for significant military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as well as smaller attacks against terrorists outside the Middle East. President Trump has continued this practice. Congressional critics unsuccessfully have sought to repeal or amend the AUMF because of worries that it provides the executive branch with a blank check to start new wars.

John Bellinger and John Yoo, who both worked on the AUMF original passage, will discuss the current controversies over the AUMF.

Featuring:
- John B. Bellinger, Partner, Arnold; Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at 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.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) prohibits religious advertisements on Metro buses, including the Archdiocese’s “Find the Perfect Gift” Christmas advertising campaign. Does this no-religious-speech policy violate the First Amendment’s speech and religion clauses, as well as also violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The Archdiocese has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to invalidate WMATA’s no-religious-speech policy.
Featuring:
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis

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.

Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court upheld "one-strike" policies that allowed public-housing authorities to evict entire families if one member of the household committed a crime. Since then, municipalities across the country have increasingly adopted similar policies in their regulation of private landlords: encouraging or even requiring landlords to evict tenants if any member of their family--or even an overnight guest--commits a crime anywhere at all. The Institute for Justice has challenged one such law in Granite City, Illinois, where city authorities are trying to compel a local landlord to evict Jessica and Kenny Wylie (and their children) based on a crime committed by a since-departed friend of their teenage son. Jessica and Kenny want to stay, and their landlord wants them to stay, but city officials say they have to go. IJ Senior Attorney Robert McNamara will discuss the case and more broadly the constitutional, property-rights, and criminal-justice issues surrounding so-called "crime-free housing" laws.
Featuring:
Robert McNamara, 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.

The EPA released the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule in June 2019. The ACE Rule replaces the 2015 Clean Power Plan and establishes emissions guidelines for states to utilize when crafting plans to limit carbon dioxide at existing coal-fired power plants. Our panelists will discuss how the ACE Rule differs from the Clean Power Plan in terms of statutory construction, delegation of authority and flexibility to the states. Discussion will include anticipated legal challenges as well as judicial review timelines.
Featuring:
Michael J. Nasi, Partner, Jackson Walker (Austin)
Thomas A. Lorenzen, Partner, Crowell & Moring (Washington, D.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.

Encryption, once the domain of intelligence operatives, is now ubiquitous. Nearly every personal electronic device can now be encrypted with ciphers unbreakable by the most technologically advanced governments. This trend poses particular challenges to criminal investigations, such as when evidence is located on a suspect’s encrypted smartphone. So what about compelling the suspect to decrypt? The Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]" The Supreme Court's act of production doctrine says that certain compelled productions are a testimonial, and therefore cannot be used to incriminate the producer. However, the foregone conclusion doctrine allows compelled production when the information to be produced is already known to the government. Precisely how these doctrines apply to compelled decryption has yet to be settled. Federal appeals courts have expressed their opinions, and state supreme courts are considering the issue as well. This teleforum features two law professors who have debated the issue in academic publications and as amici.
Featuring:
Prof. Orin Kerr, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Prof. Laurent Sacharoff, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville