FedSoc Forums

The international community has focused on the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas following Hamas’ massacre of civilians and taking of hostages on October 7th, 2023. However, after Hezbollah joined Hamas’ attack “in solidarity” by launching rockets and artillery at Israelis on October 8th, a second front opened. Fighting raged along Israel’s northern border through much of the past year, displacing large civilian populations for months. Innovative Israeli tactics – including the use of exploding pagers and walkie-talkies and the targeted killing of Hassan Nasrallah and other senior figures – captured the world’s attention, garnering condemnation from some and admiration from others. Our panel of experts will discuss these developments, with a specific focus on the principles of the law of armed conflict and the prospects for peace in an evolving regional landscape.
Featuring:

Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Former Director of Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State
Prof. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights Clinic, Notre Dame Law School
Moderator: Daniel G. West, Managing Director, SCF Partners

What constitutional protections exist for retired admirals and generals commenting on political candidates, campaigns, and sitting presidents? What constitutes prohibited speech? What enforcement mechanisms exist for any such prohibited speech? What additional national security concerns exist when retired admirals and generals weigh in on politics?
Join leading experts to examine the legal parameters of the persistent use of political speech by retired military officials in American politics.
Featuring:

Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
J. Daniel McCarthy, Federal Special Master, US District Court For The District Of Columbia
Moderator: Andrew Darlington, Director, Florida Office of Election Crimes and Security

Where should the line be drawn in the debate between the rights of persons to hold religious beliefs and transgender advocates when it comes to government policies? Whether teachers or others can be compelled to use names and pronouns for students who identify as transgender is becoming a common battleground.
The school district in Brownsburg, Indiana ordered Mr. Kluge to use incorrect pronouns, which he believes are a lie. The school moved to fire him when he expressed a religious objection—without considering any Title VII religious accommodations, as the law requires. Once Mr. Kluge suggested he use all students’ last names like a coach, the district relented. But school officials changed their minds when some students and teachers complained, saying no future accommodations would be allowed. They forced Mr. Kluge to either violate his religious beliefs with his own words, face termination, or resign.
Mr. Kluge resigned under protest and filed suit under Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, under Hardison’s more than a de minimise cost test for undue hardship. After the Supreme Court held in Groff that undue hardship requires more—a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer’s business, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. But the district court’s analysis did not change. Mr. Kluge’s case is now back before the Seventh Circuit, which will be one of the first appellate courts to grapple with Groff’s new standard.
Featuring:

David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

This litigation update will discuss the United Natural Foods case, where a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel ordered the withdrawal of a Complaint issued against two unions, which occurred shortly after President Biden removed former General Counsel Peter Robb in January 2021. After the Supreme Court eliminated Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Sup. Ct. 6/28/2024), the Supreme Court in United Natural Foods vacated a divided Fifth Circuit opinion (where the majority had afforded deference to the Board), resulting in a recent Fifth Circuit oral argument which occurred on February 3, 2025. United Natural Foods is represented by Morgan Lewis partner (and former NLRB Chairman) Philip Miscimarra, who – in this session – will discuss whether deference to the NLRB has been eliminated, how have courts resolved challenges to the removal of former General Counsel Peter Robb, and is the NLRB required to apply the federal rules of civil procedure, among other things.
Featuring:

Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
(Moderator) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr., Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP

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.

Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.
Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.
Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.

Featuring:

Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Jonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute
Richard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLP
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

The Federal Circuit’s first Chief Judge, the Honorable Howard T. Markey, announced, “In our Court there will be an opinion explaining enough to tell you what the law is in every case.” He added, “We do not just render a one-worded decision and go away.” In recent years, however, the Federal Circuit has routinely issued one-word “judgment[s] of affirmance without opinion” under Federal Circuit Rule 36(a), saying only “AFFIRMED” rather than issuing an opinion. Is this practice lawful? Do the benefits of Rule 36’s benefits outweigh its costs? Join this FedSoc Forum for a lively debate on these questions.
Featuring:

Joseph Cianfrani, Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP
Amit R. Vora, Special Counsel, Kasowitz Benson Torres
Moderator: Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP

--
To register, click the link above.

In 2025, antitrust and consumer protection remain hot topics in the legal world as a new Congress and Administration begin. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss possible antitrust and Federal Trade Commission reforms in the 119th Congress.
Featuring:

Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary
Thomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
Lynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States Senate
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

--
To register, click on the link above.

Due to impending inclement weather this event has been converted to a webinar.

Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream!


Panel:


David Bernstein
Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values



Kimberly Hermann,
Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation



Prof. Yascha Mounk,
Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University;
Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations


Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education



(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman,
Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law





---
Does DEI rise and fall due to cultural fads that tend to come and go, or is DEI mainly driven by substantive provisions of civil rights law that are much harder to unravel? Are DEI programs morphing from a primarily race-based focus to a gender and sex-based focus, or does their focus remain on race and ethnicity? This panel will discuss how DEI is impacting federal civil rights issues, consider federal, state, and local levels, and debate whether DEI has passed its high-water mark.


Featuring:


David Bernstein, Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values
Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations
Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act states an employer’s communication is not an unfair labor practice if it does not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or a promise of a benefit. Historically, this provision was understood to protect employers’ free speech rights to hold mandatory meetings with employees to express their views on unionization.
However, in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 14, 2024), the National Labor Relations Board held that mandatory meetings where an employer expresses its views on unions violate the Act. The Board deemed such meetings unlawful, even if the views expressed during them do not independently constitute an unfair labor practice.
Bill Messenger and Roger King will examine the history of Section 8(c), the Board’s interpretation of its scope, and the potential outcome of the Board’s decision on appeal to the 11th Circuit.
Featuring:

William L. Messenger, Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

From the Olympics to San Jose State, each month we hear of new controversies where biological men are competing in women’s sports. Most of those situations relate to college, international, or public school competitions. But how do policies that permit transgender athlete participation impact private religious schools, both now and in the future? How do such schools’ sincerely-held religious beliefs about these issues change what state actors can and can’t do? In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, the Vermont Principals Association (VPA), a state-sponsored sports league, removed Mid Vermont from its athletic association because the school forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game against another team with a male athlete who identified as female. The Christian school declined to play the game because of its religious beliefs about sex, yet the VPA imposed this punishment while still allowing forfeits for secular reasons. Although the VPA has historically prohibited boys from playing on girls’ sports teams “to protect opportunities for girl athletes,” it recently adopted policies that allow males who identify as female to participate in girls’ sports and demanded Mid Vermont’s girls’ teams play against teams with male athletes or not play at all. Mid Vermont and some of its families sued in response. In June 2024, a federal district court applied rational-basis review and denied Mid Vermont’s motion for preliminary injunction. The case is currently pending at the Second Circuit, where the court will resolve whether, while the case proceeds below, Mid Vermont will be allowed to rejoin the state athletic association it competed in for close to 30 years. Join us for a discussion of this case, the religious liberty issues implicated, and the larger consequences state nondiscrimination laws may have on religious schools going forward.
Featuring:

David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Eric W. Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law