FedSoc Forums

In July of 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced its final rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. HUD touts the rule, promulgated under the Fair Housing Act of 1928, as a critical tool to help communities “take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination.” Critics charge that the program is a power grab that improperly applies disparate impact analysis and incorrectly views geographic clustering of racial and ethnic minorities as evidence of discrimination and segregation. Our experts discussed the merits of the rule from both law and policy perspectives. -- Featuring: Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center.

On April 20, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a case challenging Arizona's state legislative district map as partisan gerrymandering. Our expert discussed the opinion and what it means for the Court’s voting rights jurisprudence. -- Featuring: Hon. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

On Monday, April 18, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas, which will examine the constitutionality of the President's executive actions on immigration. In addition to complex questions about standing and administrative law, the Court has added a Take Care Clause question to the argument. Our expert attended the oral arguments and offered a summary as well as his analysis. -- Featuring: Prof. Josh Blackman, Assistant Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces recently granted review in United States v. Sterling, in which it will address, for the first time, the nature and scope of Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s applicability within the military. Marine Corps Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse she taped to her computer in her workspace. Our expert, along with former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, serves as co-counsel for Ms. Sterling, and explained Sterling’s potential significance to religious liberty within the military. Our expert also discussed other significant and recent developments in the field of military religious liberty, such as the case of U.S. Navy chaplain Wes Modder, who faced career-ending punishment after offering pastoral counseling in accordance with his denomination’s teaching and tenets. -- Featuring: Michael Berry, Senior Counsel and Director of Military Affairs, First Liberty Institute.

True the Vote, a Texas-based vote monitoring organization intent on policing and preventing voter fraud, brought suit against the Internal Revenue Service alleging discrimination against conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status. On Thursday, April 14, additional oral arguments were held in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Advocate Professor John Eastman joined our Teleforum to discuss the merits of the case, its procedural posture, and the argument. -- Featuring: Prof. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law.

In a per curiam opinion issued on March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upholding a state law prohibiting the possession of stun guns, finding that the decision was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Justices Alito and Thomas issued a concurring opinion which would have gone further in finding the Massachusetts statute unconstitutional. Our expert discussed the case and its implications for the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence going forward. -- Featuring: Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, George Mason University School of Law.

After much prodding from human rights advocates and congressional committees, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Obama administration considers ISIS guilty of "genocide." Why did it take them so long? The Obama administration may believe the rationale that Christian purges are mitigated by the ISIS offer of historic jizya (dhimmi tax) compliance from religious objectors. But field reports reveal that, under ISIS, the jizya option has been categorically rejected. What does the genocide designation do for targeted religious groups? Does it matter that particular religious groups are described by this designation? Should we now expect a very different policy in the Middle East? -- Featuring: Prof. Julian Ku, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Faculty Director of International Programs and Hofstra Research Fellow, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University; Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute; and Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, President, Genocide Watch. Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law.

Continuing the trend of recent years, this Term the Supreme Court is hearing a number of cases that will determine important intellectual property rights. Our experts discussed the pending cases, and what they might mean for IP rights and the economy going forward. On broader issues, is either court more consistently in favor of strong property rights protection? Is there an explanation for the perceived IP rights dissonance between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? As the Supreme Court’s overall docket continues to shrink, what explains the Court’s steadily high number of intellectual property cases? -- Featuring: Garrard R. Beeney, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Matthew S. Hellman, Partner, Jenner & Block. Moderator: Prof. Dennis D. Crouch, Co-Director, Center for Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship, Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law.

Should you need the government’s permission to try to save your own life? Today, the FDA regulates medications available to Americans, and it takes an average of ten years to bring a new drug to market. Every day Americans die from fatal diseases for which lifesaving treatments that now exist or are being developed are ruled too “dangerous” for commercial distribution. But how does that FDA standard apply to someone in the terminal stages of cancer or ALS? If terminal patients are given access and drug makers are given immunity, might drugs nearing approval be derailed if there is a bad result for a small number of patients? In her recent book, The Right to Try, Darcy Olsen goes inside the federal bureaucracy that she claims is stopping millions from accessing lifesaving treatments, lays out the case for expanding access to experimental medicines, and describes the ongoing national campaign to change these laws state-by-state. -- Featuring: Darcy Olsen, President and CEO, Goldwater Institute and Evan Bernick, Assistant Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice.

Is America strangling on red tape? Regulations have become voluminous and complex, and many claim that they now threaten to paralyze the government and stifle the economy. Gridlock and stagnation are commonplace, even a feature of our government. What can be done when cronyism corrupts competition, and compliance replaces common sense? Individuals lack the authority they need to exercise the personal judgment they must exercise to deal effectively with the problems that confront them. Is a radical restructuring and liberating simplification of the regulatory state urgently needed? Our experts held a stimulating discussion of the steps that can be taken. -- Featuring: J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia and Philip K. Howard, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP and Chair, Common Good.