FedSoc Forums

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the EPA. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can regulate, as a stationary source of emissions, power plants only if EPA concludes that "regulation is appropriate and necessary." The Court, in a split decision, held that the EPA acted unreasonably when it deemed cost of the regulations irrelevant when it decided to regulate power plants. But what does that mean for the EPA? Will the decision have an impact for other regulatory agencies? -- Featuring: Andrew Grossman, Associate, Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today resolved the gay marriage case, ruling that the “Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.” Our experts discussed the case and the decision. -- Featuring: Prof. John C. Eastman, Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law and Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute

On June 25 the Supreme Court held that Affordable Care Act subsidies are available to individuals in States that have a Federal Exchange as well as a State Exchange. In upholding the subsidies, the majority concluded that the Court must read the statutory provisions of the ACA “in context,” and that “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” In a dissent joined by two colleagues, Justice Scalia wrote that the Court’s conclusion was “quite absurd,” and that “[w]ords no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the state.’” How momentous is today’s decision? -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Prof. Josh Blackman, South Texas College of Law; and David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, citing stare decisis, the Court held that a patent holder cannot charge royalties for the use of his invention after its patent term has expired. In so holding, the Court affirmed a 60 year-old case along the same lines. But in yesterday’s decision, three justices dissented, stating that “[t] he Court employs stare decisis, normally a tool of restraint, to reaffirm a clear case of judicial overreach.” Should the Court have reversed course? -- Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law.

Under what circumstances can the government take your property without giving you compensation? Does it matter whether it is real property or personal property? On June 22, with an interesting alignment of justices, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Horne v. Department of Agriculture, addressing these and other questions. -- Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP.

On Jun 18, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases with free speech implications. In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Court held that the speech involved in a specialty license plate was government speech, and the government can regulate its content. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Court held that the content-based time, size and location regulation of a church's signage did not pass strict scrutiny. Our expert discussed the details of the opinions and took questions from the audience. -- Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

It is the year 4300 in an imaginary jurisdiction named Newgarth. Old questions dominate the deliberations of the Supreme Court as Chief Justice Truepenny and his four colleagues present their opinions in the appeal of a notorious murder verdict. Each Justice presents and defends his analysis and disposition of the appeal. The opinions offer considered views of law, justice, judges' work and larger public opinion. No pale pastels for the Truepenny Court, as its members alternately resort to the broad brush and the fine scalpel. The final effect is one of a well written teaching tool and also an essay on our flawed human condition. -- Prof. Lon L. Fuller, in his article, “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers,” presented his ideas in the form of a dialogue, without footnotes. The Harvard Law Review published it in February 1949. In a sense it is a work of moral imagination. In another sense it is so dated as to be almost antiquarian. The members of Supreme Court of Newgarth are male and the legal analysis they offer and the language they use are distinctly old-fashioned. In some quarters it would be regarded as a discredited tool of oppression. That said, Prof. Fuller still entertains and teaches the reader, 65 years later. The questions and worries that lawyers and judges share with the Justices of Newgarth still loom in the 21st century. -- Our discussion panel was composed of legal scholars from Canada, Australia, and the United States. In a real sense, its diversity shows the continuing relevance and appeal of this legal classic. -- Featuring: Prof. James Allan, Garrick Professor of Law, University of Queensland, TC Beirne School of Law; James A. Haynes, Attorney and Alternate Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, Employees Compensation Appeals Board; and Prof. Dan Priel, York University Osgoode School of Law

Prof. Frederick Schauer, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

Over the past several years there has been a heightened interest in the operation and structure of the U.S. securities markets. Annette Nazareth and Jeffrey Dinwoodie explained the history and development of our current equity market structure. They also shed light on some of the key issues currently being debated and provided an update on the SEC’s activities in this area. -- Featuring: Jeffrey T. Dinwoodie, Associate, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and Annette L. Nazareth, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued ruling in two important immigration cases: Mata v. Lynch and Kerry v. Din. -- In Mata v. Lynch, the Court overturned the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to hear an appeal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to dismissal of Noel Reyes Mata’s request to appeal his deportation to Mexico, holding that the Fifth Circuit erred in declining to take jurisdiction over Mr. Mata’s appeal. -- In Kerry v. Din, the Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that petitioner Fauzia Din was denied constitutional due process protections when her husband, Kanishka Berashk, a resident citizen of Afghanistan and a former civil servant in the Taliban regime, was denied an immigration visa to the United States on the grounds that he was inadmissable under American law that excludes aliens who have engaged in “[t]errorist activities,” and when Mrs. Din and Mr. Berashk were subsequently denied review of their appeal in U.S. District Court. The Court held that the U.S. Government’s long practice of regulating immigration, which has included erecting serious impediments to a person’s ability to bring a spouse into the United States, precludes Mrs. Din’s claim. -- Our expert, Chapman University School of Law Prof. John C. Eastman, analyzed these opinions and offered his perspectives of their impact on immigration policy.

Members of the Federalist Society’s Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Executive Committee provided an update on recent important activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). -- Featuring: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association and Julius L. Loeser, Of Counsel, Winston & Strawn LLP