FedSoc Forums

“The law of war is of fundamental importance to the Armed Forces of the United States. The law of war is part of who we are.” So begins the new U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual, published last June, which had not been updated for nearly 60 years. At 1180 single-spaced pages and with 6,916 footnotes, the manual would seem to be thorough and exhaustive. Our experts will critique the Department of Defense Manual. Does it provide the guidance necessary to troops on the ground, commanders, and all actors in between? How does it address modern warfare, terrorism, and asymmetrical war? How does it define lawful and unlawful belligerents? What does it say about interrogation and detention? These and other questions were addressed by our experts. -- Featuring: Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, Professor of the Practice of Law and Executive Director, Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, Duke University School of Law and Prof. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School. Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law.

Whoever the next President is, judicial appointments will be among his or her most important legacies. With four Supreme Court Justices over the age of 77, this is a particularly timely discussion. This Teleforum discussed what the next President should look for in judicial nominees. It also discussed whether and how the President takes the Senate's views into account when making judicial nominations. -- Featuring: Thomas L. Jipping, Chief Counsel, Senator Hatch, Judiciary Committee and Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear a challenge by Texas (and 25 other states) to President Obama’s deferred action immigration policy. The federal government, which lost below, is asking the Court to reverse both because it believes the policy is lawful and because it believes the states weren’t entitled to bring the suit in the first place—because they lacked “standing.” This Teleforum debate considered both who has the better of the standing argument in the Texas case, and, more generally, when states should (and should not be) allowed to challenge federal government policies in court. -- Featuring: Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law and Adam J. White, Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institute.

In Friedrichs, the Court will consider whether to overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which held that public employees can be compelled to financially support union collective-bargaining with government, but not union political activities. The Court’s grant of certiorari in Friedrichs came on the one-year anniversary of its decision in Harris v. Quinn, where the Court criticized Abood’s rationales, but did not overrule Abood. Unlike Harris, Friedrichs squarely presents the issue decided in Abood—whether public school teachers can be required to pay compulsory union fees as condition of their employment. -- The Friedrichs petitioners argue that Abood should be overturned because there is no distinction between bargaining with government and lobbying government—both are political speech. The respondent California Teachers Association, however, counters that union bargaining with government is akin to bargaining with a private employer, and that it is wrongful for teachers to get a “free ride” on union bargaining efforts. -- Is the Court likely to overrule Abood? And what will be the implications if it does? -- Bill Messenger attended the oral arguments and offered his impressions and predictions during this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call. -- Featuring: William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

In this class action case, counsel for the plaintiffs received over 94% of the total cash recovery provided for in settlement – while the attorneys received $5,680,000 in fees, the millions of class members realized only $344,850. Objector Ted Frank’s petition for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court is pending. The petition essentially asks whether such an award is fair, reasonable and adequate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. What will this case mean for the future of cy pres and class action litigation? -- Featuring: Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney, Director of the Center for Class Action Fairness, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

On June 30, 2015, the Supreme Court decided to revisit whether the First Amendment permits the government to compel its employees to financially support a union by granting certiorari in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915. In Friedrichs, the Court will consider whether to overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which held that public employees can be compelled to financially support union collective-bargaining with government, but not union political activities. -- The Court’s grant of certiorari came on the one-year anniversary of its decision in Harris v. Quinn, where the Court criticized Abood’s rationales, but did not overrule Abood. Unlike Harris, Friedrichs squarely presents the issue decided in Abood—whether public school teachers can be required to pay compulsory union fees as condition of their employment. -- The Friedrichs petitioners argue that Abood should be overturned because there is no distinction between bargaining with government and lobbying government—both are political speech. The respondent California Teachers Association, however, counters that union bargaining with government is akin to bargaining with a private employer, and that it is wrongful for teachers to get a so-called “free ride” on union bargaining efforts. -- Is the Court likely to overrule Abood? And what will be the implications if it does? -- Featuring: William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. and Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network.

“The government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine. This is a triumph of willful blindness and political correctness . . . “ So says Andy McCarthy in National Review Online. Others assert that Islam is a peaceful religion that has been corrupted or hijacked by terrorists for their own un-Islamic purposes. Our experts discussed the legal and policy implications of these two contrasting viewpoints. -- Featuring: Prof. David F. Forte, Professor of Law, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute.

On November 13, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission's Chief Administrative Law Judge, D. Michael Chappell, issued a 92 page opinion in the closely-watched LabMD data security case. In his opinion, the ALJ comprehensively disagreed with the FTC's factual claims and legal theories. Applying Section 5, he ruled that Complaint Counsel failed to prove a probability, or "likelihood," of harm, and that "Fundamental fairness" means Section 5(n) “requires proof of more than...hypothetical or theoretical harm...” Complaint Counsel has appealed and, according to statistics published by former Commissioner Joshua Wright, the Commission is likely to reverse. Reed D. Rubinstein, counsel to Cause of Action and a Partner at Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, spoke about the case and answered questions about its implications for data security regulation, Section 5 jurisprudence, and combating administrative agency overreach. -- Featuring: Reed D. Rubinstein, Of Counsel, Cause of Action, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP.

Net Neutrality has been the subject of intense policy discussion in recent years, but the dramatic international implications of a shift in internet regulation remain unappreciated. To date, U.S. regulators have utilized a light-touch form of regulation. Much has been said about the Federal Communication Commission’s new regulatory approach, but left largely undiscussed is how it will affect the global internet, American competitiveness, and more. Our panelists provided an in-depth discussion of the global ripples the FCC’s Open Internet Order may create. -- Featuring: Paul Brigner, Director, North America Regional Bureau, Internet Society; Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Hon. Robert M. McDowell, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP; and David Redl, Chief Counsel for Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives. Moderator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP.

Our Teleforum previewed the oral argument in the Supreme Court in Evenwel v. Abbott. What is meant, precisely, by the term “one person, one vote”? What are its implications for apportioning legislative districts? Does the Equal Protection Clause allow States to use total population, or does it require States to use voter population, when apportioning its legislative districts? What are the best arguments to be made by each side? These and other questions were addressed as we previewed one of the most talked-about cases of the Term. -- Featuring: Bradley A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group and C. Dean McGrath Jr., Founder, McGrath & Associates.