FedSoc Forums

Charlie Savage, the New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, has just released his new book, "Power Wars." The book is an examination of the legal issues surrounding the War on Terror as practiced in the Obama Administration. Following up on his earlier examination of the Bush White House, this book takes us behind the scenes into the heart of the legal debates. Readers get a front row seat to watch as President Obama and his lawyers consider whether it is lawful to send a SEAL team strike into Pakistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden. They see the cross currents at play in debates over NSA surveillance and drone strikes in Yemen, and much more. -- Featuring: Charlie Savage, Washington Correspondent, New York Times and Paul Rosenzweig, Principal, Red Branch Law & Consulting PLLC.

Last term, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s independent redistricting commission. State legislators had challenged the creation of such a commission, arguing that transferring their redistricting authority violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now, in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court will consider a challenge to state legislative districts drawn up by the commission. A group of voters argue that the commission overpopulated Republican-dominated districts by packing in non-minority voters while placing minority voters in smaller, Democrat-dominated districts. The result, they argue, is the dilution of votes in GOP districts, which violates the “one person, one vote” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Mark “Thor” Hearne, counsel for Harris in the case, discussed his impressions of oral arguments and made predictions about how the Court might rule in this important case. -- Featuring: Mark F. Hearne, II, Partner, Arent Fox LLP

On Friday, the D.C. Court of Appeals heard U.S. Telecomm Association v. FCC, a challenge to the FCC's much-discussed net neutrality rules. Proponents of the rule assert that it is needed to ensure that all internet traffic is treated equally, to ensure fair access to the internet and all it offers, access that is currently controlled by internet service providers. Critics of the rule claim that the FCC lacks authority to regulate the internet, that the rule violates the plain wording of the Telecommunications Act, that the White House intervention in calling for the rule violated both basic separation of powers and notice and comment requirements, and that the rule implicates free speech. Which side has the better argument? -- Featuring: Brantley Webb, Associate, Mayer Brown LLP and Adam J. White, Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution.

On December 9, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In this case, Ms. Fisher challenges the use of racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate admissions at the University. This is the case’s second trip to the Supreme Court; in 2013, the Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that had upheld the University’s policy, and said the lower court had been too deferential to the school, particularly with respect to applying the “narrow tailoring” prong of strict scrutiny. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again ruled for the University, and last summer the Court granted Ms. Fisher’s petition. -- Mr. Clegg and Prof. Shaw discussed what the Court is likely to do with the case, as well as what the Court should do with the case. The Court’s review comes at an interesting time, with numerous campus protests on race-related issues. Also of interest is the fact that Ms. Fisher’s lawyers have now filed lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, and have emphasized allegations of discrimination against Asian Americans. -- Featuring: Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity and Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law, and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law.

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.

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

Our panelists will discuss the criminal justice system generally, and the role of the prosecutor in particular. Some argue that, with the weight of the state and its resources on one side, including a deep book of potential crimes, the deck is unfairly stacked against criminal defendants. Others argue that police and prosecutors act in good faith, and credit them with incapacitating career criminals, trimming recidivism, and causing a plunge in national crime statistics. Who has the better of the argument? -- Featuring: Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and Prof. William G. Otis, Georgetown University Law Center.

At issue in Evenwel v. Abbott, argued on December 8, is whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one person, one vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts. Must each voter’s vote count equally and, if so, how is that to be accomplished? Does the scheme under consideration dilute the votes of certain people and, if so, how are their interests to be balanced against the goal of attaining majority-minority districts? What level of judicial scrutiny will be applied in this case? How does this case differ from Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission? Andrew Grossman attended the oral arguments and offered his impressions and predictions on s Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call. His piece "Evenwel v. Abbott: What Does One Person, One Vote Really Mean?" is valuable background reading on this critical case. -- Featuring: Andrew Grossman, Associate, Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute.

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.

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.