FedSoc Forums

When federal law enforcement raids the wrong home, do innocent homeowners have any legal recourse? The answer is more complicated than one might expect. Over the years, the Supreme Court has limited the ability to bring constitutional claims against federal officers, citing the absence of a congressionally authorized cause of action. However, Congress has provided a remedy for certain torts committed by federal law enforcement through the law-enforcement proviso of the Federal Tort Claims Act—legislation enacted in response to notorious federal raids in the 1970s. Yet even this statutory remedy may fall short today.
In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether the law-enforcement proviso can overcome sovereign immunity and whether an innocent family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team, has a path to relief. Join us for an in-depth discussion on the implications of this case and the broader question of accountability for federal law enforcement.
Featuring: Patrick Jaicomo, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green card holder, was detained by ICE on March 8 and faces deportation for his involvement in the protests and disruptions at Columbia University related to the war between Hamas and Israel. The U.S. government cites an immigration law provision allowing his deportation because of “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Critics have argued that the government's action is retaliation for his speech. How does the Constitution apply in the case of non-citizens legally present in the U.S.? What is the role of the courts here?
Join us on April 1 at 11 AM EST for a conversation between Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute and Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their conversation will be moderated by Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.
Featuring:

Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute
Moderator: Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.

Prosecution laches is an infrequently used equitable doctrine that bars enforcement of a patent when the patentee has unreasonably delayed prosecution in a way that prejudices others. It is most commonly used by accused infringers as a defense in patent litigation, although the USPTO can also use it as a basis for refusing allowance. Regardless, it is most often used against the backdrop of multiple continuation applications.
Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution.
In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.
This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.
Featuring:

Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLC
Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Gene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.
Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies

--
To register, click the link above.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.
Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.


Featuring:

Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Prof. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Francesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section
(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Prompted by the reintroduction of federal Litigation Transparency Act legislation, this panel will address a variety of issues raised by litigation funding with a special focus on patent litigation. Panelists will provide an overview of the Act and consider likely reactions from various constituencies, giving possible policy arguments for and against litigation funding disclosure. The panel will also consider constitutional and practical dimensions of funding disclosure, and the possible ethical issues raised by litigation funding.
Featuring:

Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Courtney Quish, Managing Director, Intellectual Property Finance Group at Fortress Investment Group
Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents
Paul Taylor, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Kacie Donovan, Associate, Greenberg Traurig

--
To register, click the link above.

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge's role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.
Featuring:

Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review
William Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & Associates
Moderator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

--
To resgister, click the link above.

Bondi v. VanDerStok concerned whether the ATF's 2022 update to its regulations under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which articulated that federal law requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of standard firearms also apply to "ghost guns" --readily convertible weapons parts or receiver kits-- exceeds the mandate of the same. The ATF argued it simply clarified what had already been true in response to the notable rise in the use of ghost guns. The challengers, including two individual gun owners and a gun advocacy organization, alleged the updated regulations exceeded the statutory authority granted to the ATF and brought a facial challenge. The Court heard oral argument on October 8, 2024.
On March 26, 2025, a 7-2 Court ruled the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what its potential effects might be.
Featuring:

Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation


--
Note: this program has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/10/25, and will now be hosted on 04/11/25 at 12pm ET.

A new project sponsored by a coalition of organizations seeks to track the various ways that federal and state programs discriminate against religious participants in a range of funding programs despite a series of Supreme Court cases holding such discriminatory treatment unconstitutional. The Religious Discrimination Tracker is a project of the EPIC Coalition (a multi-faith coalition that focuses on education), the Teach Coalition, the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic, and the Notre Dame Educational Law Project. The site seeks to identify ways to ensure equal access to funding by religious participants, particularly in education. In this webinar, Professor Nicole Stelle Garnett (Notre Dame Law) will discuss this new project and expand on her argument in a November 2024 Wall Street Journal op-ed that a range of federal programs "reflect[] an outdated understanding of the First Amendment that assumes the Constitution requires the exclusion of religious expression from public life and programs."
Featuring:

Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law and Religion and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law
(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

High-profile politically adjacent actions (including prosecutions, pardons, & dismissals) from both the current and past administrations have inspired increasing concern over the potential weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice. This concern has led to recent executive actions in this area --President Trump issued an Executive Order on the first day back in office on "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government," and AG Bondi has created a task force aimed at "Restoring the Integrity and Credibility" of the DOJ.
These actions prompt the question: has the DOJ actually been weaponized, and if so, in what ways? What is the role of the DOJ in the criminal justice process, and what responsibility does it have as a part of the executive branch to represent the will of the president? Have the actions of both the past administrations in bringing cases against political opponents, seeking to dismiss charges from potential allies, and shielding friends and family from potential prosecution been a mis-use of the Department of Justice, or appropriate uses of executive discretion?
This panel will discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:

Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro & Singer
(Moderator) Stephen J. Demanovich, Special Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

--
This event is the second of four webinars centering on the theme Theories of Presidential Power, previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, which will be held on May 7, 2025.

Please note: this event has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/16 and will now be hosted 04/21 at 11am ET.

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024.
On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP