Two years ago, the Supreme Court’s 7-1 ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas required race-conscious college admissions programs to be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, mandating that such programs be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. On remand, the Fifth Circuit upheld the University of Texas’ admission policy as meeting that standard, but the case will once again be considered by the Supreme Court, and was argued on December 9. What are the issues now under consideration, and what are the arguments of each party? Why has the case returned to the Court a second time? -- Featuring: Joshua P. Thompson, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

The attacks by ISIS on the citizens of Paris and the world have again focused attention on the challenges of counterterrorism. In this Teleforum, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and prominent French lawyer Francois-Henri Briard addressed issues such as international cooperation on surveillance and intelligence sharing, whether policies on encryption of electronic communications need to be revised, what authorities or international institutions, if any, should be called upon in support of the use of force against ISIS, and the nature of the response from France, the U.S., Russia, and other nations. -- Featuring: Francois-Henri Briard, Supreme Court Attorney (France), Delaporte, Briard & Trichet and Michael Chertoff, Executive Chairman and Co-Founder, The Chertoff Group.

On November 10 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo. In this case, Tyson Foods was ordered to pay $5.8 million in damages in a class action lawsuit brought by employees alleging violations of various federal and state labor laws. A class of employees sued Tysons for failing to properly compensate them for time they spent donning and doffing protective clothing and equipment and washing equipment. The 8th Circuit allowed the plaintiffs to use used statistical sampling to determine damage awards. The Eighth Circuit certified the class under Rule 23 despite a wide variance among class members of time spent donning, doffing and washing equipment. The outcome of the case could have a significant impact on the rules governing class certifications and whether statistical sampling can be used in the class action context. -- Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Legal Center.

Acclaimed military historian, prolific columnist and political essayist Victor Davis Hanson discusses President Obama’s foreign policy on a special Teleforum conference call. With a growing number of troubling hotspots throughout the world, and the November 13 attacks on Paris, this discussion was be extremely timely. -- Featuring: Dr. Victor D. Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.

At a time when some argue that the Rule of Law seems to be deteriorating and with a Presidential election heating up, the question of judicial review has perhaps never been more vital. Yet debate over the best methods of conducting judicial review typically present the law's meaning as either rigid or elastic, inherently given, or subjectively projected. -- By examining proper modes of judicial review within the framework of a proper legal system as a whole—and more specifically, by identifying law’s function and authority—philosopher Tara Smith’s new book, Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System, seeks to break past this false alternative and chart a distinctive course for genuinely objective review that upholds the Rule of Law. -- Featuring: Prof. Tara A Smith, University of Texas and Prof. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law.

On November 2, 2015 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Spokeo v. Robins. Spokeo, a “people search engine,” published inaccurate information about Thomas Robins, who sought to file a class action lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. A district court found that Robins lacked standing to bring suit, since the incorrect biographical information published by Spokeo had not caused a concrete harm. In a case that could have potentially far-reaching implications for environmental, civil rights, and other class-action litigation, the Court will decide whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute. -- Featuring: Cory L. Andrews, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.

Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, delivered an address on criminal justice reform and policing. In announcing her arrival at the Department of Justice, Eric Holder praised Ms. Gupta, saying that “even as she has done trailblazing work as a civil rights lawyer, Vanita is also known as a unifier and consensus builder. She has a knack for bridging differences and building coalitions to drive progress.” This praise has been echoed by sources as diverse as National Rifle Association head David Keene, who told the Washington Post that Ms. Gupta “listens to and works with people from all perspectives to accomplish real good.” -- Featuring: Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice.

In October of 2015, The Intercept, a website founded by Edward Snowden confidant Glenn Greenwald, unveiled "The Drone Papers," a series of stories based on secret documents provided by a new, anonymous leaker in the U.S. Government. Many in the media hailed the series, calling for congressional investigations and major changes in U.S. policy. -- Adam Klein, Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow and Visiting Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, discussed "The Drone Papers" -- what they are, what they reveal about U.S. operations, what claims they do and do not support, and the implications for counterterrorism law and policy. -- Featuring: Adam Klein, Visiting Fellow, Center for a New American Security.

Iran is a highly stressed country, and an overwhelming majority of Iranians detest the regime, according to several polls and surveys (some by the regime). At the moment, thousands of teachers are protesting the arrest of seven leaders of their organization, women's protests are commonplace, and workers are on strike, having failed to be paid for several months. -- From time to time the contempt of the people has erupted into open revolt, most notably in mid-summer, 2009. Yet no Western leader has supported them in any way. Since Western interests would be substantially advanced if Iran were a free country instead of a fanatical anti-Western theocratic dictatorship, is it time for the U.S. to support these people and openly work for democratic regime change in Iran? -- Featuring: Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar, Foundation for Defense of Democracies and David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Can the government police speech it thinks is offensive? The Lanham Act allows the government to deny trademark registration to "disparaging" speech. What does the First Amendment have to say about the government's ability to pick and choose among speech it doesn't like? Two pending appeals court cases will directly address this important question. -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, a case challenging the REDSKINS trademark and, by extension, the constitutionality of § 2(a). -- Meanwhile, in In re Tam, an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants” was denied trademark registration after the Patent and Trademark Office found the trademark disparaging to Asians. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision. But the en banc Federal Circuit—without being asked—decided to vacate that decision and consider whether § 2(a) violates the First Amendment. -- Are we headed for a constitutional showdown over § 2(a) of the Lanham Act? Will the two appellate courts reach opposite decisions and invite Supreme Court review? -- Featuring: Dwayne D. Sam, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP and Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies and Editor-In-Chief for Cato Supreme Court Review, Cato Institute.