FedSoc Forums

July 26th will mark the 26th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enacted in 1990 to prohibit discrimination of the disabled and provide disability access to public accommodations nationwide, it has also been used throughout the years as the basis for thousands of lawsuits across the country. These lawsuits can sometimes result in financial windfalls for trial attorneys with little to no impact on improving access for the disabled community. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich discussed the strategies his office has employed to ensure this important law is used properly. -- Featuring: Hon. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is up for reauthorization in 2017. An earlier version of the program was instituted after 9/11 by President George W. Bush. In 2007, Congress adopted the Protect America Act and one year later passed the FISA Amendments Act, which included Section 702. Section 702 allows the government to target for surveillance non-U.S. citizens “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.” The authorization does not extend to non-citizens outside the country to gain information on citizens or permanent residents believed to be residing in the United States. -- While proponents of the law argue it is necessary for national security, critics claim that U.S. citizens are too often incidentally swept into surveillance due to the nature of the “targeting procedures” employed by intelligence agencies, and therefore reforms are needed to protect their privacy. Our experts discussed reauthorization, what it would mean if Congress chose not to act, and what kinds of reforms are under consideration. -- Featuring: Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security and Kate Martin, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress. Moderator: Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project.

The taking of private property for development projects has caused controversy in many nations, where it has often been used to benefit powerful interests at the expense of the general public. In their recent book, Eminent Domain: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press), editors Ilya Somin, Iljoong Kim, and Hojun Lee use a common framework to analyze the law and economics of eminent domain around the world. They show that seemingly disparate nations face a common set of problems in seeking to regulate the condemnation of private property by the state. They include the tendency to forcibly displace the poor and politically weak for the benefit of those with greater influence, disputes over compensation, and resort to condemnation in cases where it destroys more economic value than it creates. With contributions from leading scholars in the fields of property law and economics, the book offers a comparative perspective and considers a wide range of possible solutions to these problems. Professor Richard Epstein and Professor Ilya Somin joined us to discuss this interesting book. -- Featuring: Professor Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and Professor Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

A number of regulatory advocates assert that Title II of the Communications Act, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, is the only way to protect net neutrality. Research by Roslyn Layton, PhD, who has studied net neutrality in 50 countries, suggests otherwise. Moreover, a layered model using existing antitrust and consumer protection laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General may well provide more effective and less costly regulation. Alex Okuliar, formerly an advisor to FTC Commissioner (now Acting Chairman) Ohlhausen, interviewed Roslyn Layton about her research on these issues and the layered model of enforcement. -- Featuring: Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute and Moderator: Alex Okuliar, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLPAlexander Okuliar Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

On March 24, 2016 the DOL’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) issued the so-called “persuader rule” that would greatly inhibit the ability of businesses to rely on labor experts and the ability of employers to obtain legal advice in responding to union organizing campaigns. For nearly 50 years the DOL has recognized that advice, including legal advice, is excluded from reporting under federal labor law. The new persuader rule would have forced lawyers and law firms that counsel a business on most labor relations matters to disclose not only their work with that client, but also all fees and arrangements for all clients for all labor-relations services. Several lawsuits were filed challenging this rule on statutory and First Amendment grounds. On June 27, 2016, a district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction enjoining DOL from implementing the new rule. The district court then made that preliminary injunction permanent in November 2016, and DOL has appealed to the Fifth Circuit. While DOL’s appeal is pending, on June 12 DOL issued a proposal to rescind the rule. -- Christopher C. Murray, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins, represents some of the business groups in the Texas litigation who sued to stop the “persuader rule” from taking effect. He provided an update on the current state of play with regard to the litigation and proposed rulemaking. -- Featuring: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. and Moderator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

In recent years, there have been a growing number of cases where people have been freed from prison after they were exonerated or their convictions were overturned. Some states have statutes that provide compensation under some circumstances to such individuals, but the scope of those statutes and their applicability varies, with other states providing no means of compensation at all. A number of advocacy groups are pushing for changes. What, if anything, should be done? What kind of compensation are the wrongfully imprisoned entitled to? What kind of financial obligations for these cases can state treasuries bear? What is the perspective of law enforcement on these questions? This Teleforum explored these and related issues. -- Featuring: David LaBahn, President and CEO, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum

Turkey’s President Erdogan has secured authoritarian rule through constitutional restructuring. He does not tolerate dissent and has arrested journalists, prosecutors, judges, military officials, police, academics and civil servants. Turkey would arguably not qualify to join NATO today. Turkey is seeking common cause with Russia and Iran. Erdogan has called America’s Kurdish allies in Syria “terrorists” and launched air strikes against them. NATO has never expelled a member state. When are the risks to NATO countries’ security and intelligence compelling enough to consider expelling Turkey? Are other, lesser sanctions an option? What would be the mechanism to accomplish this?

Featuring:

-- Alan Makovsky, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
-- Blaise Misztal, Director of National Security, Bipartisan Policy Center

At the close of the Bosnian civil war, Divna Maslenjak sought refuge for herself and her family in the U.S. due to fear of persecution regarding their Serbian identity in modern-day Bosnia and the threat of reprisal against her husband, who she claimed had evaded military conscription in the Bosnian Serb militia. After the family was granted refuge and Maslenjak became a U.S. citizen, a U.S. court convicted Maslenjak’s husband Ratko on two counts of falsifying claims regarding Serbian military service on U.S. government documents, since Ratko had in fact served in the Serbian military. When Ratko applied for asylum to avoid deportation, Divna Maslenjak admitted to lying about her husband’s military service and was charged with two counts of naturalization fraud for previously denying that she had given false information to a U.S. official. At her trial, jurors were told that a naturalization fraud conviction could be carried out for false claims in Maslenjak’s application process, even if the claims did not affect whether she was approved. Convicted on both counts, Divna Maslenjack faced two years of probation and lost her citizenship. The Sixth Circuit affirmed her conviction, claiming that naturalization fraud did not require proof of a material false statement. -- Vikrant Reddy, a Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, discussed the potential impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling and the main question of the case: whether immaterial false statements should be a basis for withdrawing an individual’s citizenship.

Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the in the District Court. -- In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit. -- The main question the Supreme Court answered was whether these high-level government officials could be sued for damages under the Bivens precedent. The precedent, created in a 1971 case involving the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, created an implied cause of action for any person whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated by federal officials. On Monday, June 19 the Supreme Court refused to extend the Bivens precedent to the petitioners, reversing the decision by the Second Circuit and remanding the case. -- David Rivkin of Baker Hostelter joined us to discuss the opinion and its significance. -- Featuring: David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Regulations intended to address public health and environmental risks depend heavily on scientific information. Yet, they are often the subject of heated debate, involving accusations of “politicized science,” “advocacy science,” and “junk science.” Susan Dudley discussed her forthcoming paper with Marcus Peacock that explores the motivations and institutional incentives that have led to this acrimony. The paper illustrates the problem with a case study of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued under the Clean Air Act, and offers recommendations for improving how science is used to inform regulatory policy. -- Featuring: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, The George Washington University.