FedSoc Forums

In the wake of the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack in Israel, there have been reports of discrimination against Jewish students at prominent American colleges and universities. This panel will discuss the nature of the legal remedies that may be available, their likelihood of success, and any possible downsides that might accompany their use.
Featuring:

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy Center
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Alexander Tsesis, Professor and D’Alemberte Chair in Constitutional Law, Florida State University College of Law
(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

On December 9, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston. The case involved an equal protection challenge to a change in admissions policy in Boston, where a competitive public school altered its admissions criteria in a manner that reduced the number of Asian and Caucasian students. The lower courts rejected the challenge, with the First Circuit indicating that an equal protection challenge to a facially neutral policy—like admissions criteria that do not mention race—must establish that the impact on the targeted race was so severe as to reduce their numerical presence in the school below their demographic numbers in the relevant population.
By denying certiorari, the Court left the First Circuit’s opinion in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissent from denial, as they had in a similar case earlier this year called Coalition for TJ. Justice Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial, stating that he largely agreed with Justice Alito’s dissent.
This litigation update will evaluate the state of the law when it comes to “proxy discrimination” measures, and whether an equal protection claim must establish a particularly onerous disparate impact on the targeted race at issue.
Featuring:

Christopher M. Kieser, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

This case concerns the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah railway, they conducted an environmental review in which they considered direct impacts of the highway on nearby land, water, and air. But they did not consider certain environmental “downline impacts” or possible effects on historic sites along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The county challenged their review as inadequate, while the Board argues that these effects were either too minimal for serious analysis, or outside the scope of their authority.

Oral Argument is set for December 10, 2024. Join us in discussing this case and its argument with Prof. Andrew Mergen, who assisted respondents in the court of appeals, and Prof. Paul Salamanca, who wrote an amicus brief in support of petitioners.

Featuring:

Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law & Faculty Director, Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Prof. Paul Salamanca, Acting Dean and Wendell H. Ford Professor of Law, University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law
Moderator: Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP

--
To register, click the link above.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.
In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They allege that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari on June 24, 2024, on the question of whether and how the Equal Protection Clause interacts with Tennesse's law. Argument before the Court occurred on December 4, 2024.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Bethesda University, a private Christian university founded around Pentecostal theology, faced an internal leadership dispute, as the president persuaded the board to appoint non-Pentecostal members to the board of directors. The rest of the leadership objected and fired President Cho, arguing that only Pentecostals could serve on the board of directors. The former President and the California Court of Appeals sided with him, determining that the election of non-Pentecostal board members was valid under the university’s bylaws. The court held that the case involved the interpretation of governance documents, not religious doctrine, which it ruled on. Bethesda University contends that by allowing non-Pentecostals on the board, the California Court of Appeals unlawfully interfered in the internal disputes of a religious organization, and in so doing, it violated the Free Exercise Clause, specifically the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine. The university is now petitioning the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.
Featuring:

Ryan Gardner, Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. William Robert Wagner, WFFC Distinguished Chair, Spring Arbor University; Counselor of the Ministry & President Emeritus, Salt & Light Global; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School

There have been significant changes in federal AI policy over the course of the first term of the Trump administration and Biden administration that present a major inflection point for President-elect Trump as he prepares for his second term in office. This panel will delve into the differing doctrinal and policy frameworks for executive branch and congressional AI policy to map out how this transformative technology and its associated policy might manifest in President Trump's second term in office.
Featuring:

Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute
Satya Thallam, Senior Vice President, Americans for Responsible Innovation
Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law

The intersection of the First Amendment, parental rights, and educational texts has become a topic of significant conversation over the past several years. School boards in states across the nation are facing questions related to what materials are appropriate for students to read, how to educate children, the nature of parental rights, what exceptions should be granted for families who raise religious objections, and so much more. Legal challenges have cropped up on both sides, as families challenge various school boards' decisions concerning opt-outs from particular texts and decisions to remove texts from libraries.
Join us for a litigation update conversation on Pickens County Chapter of the NAACP et al. v. School District of Pickens County (a South Carolina case concerning the removal of a book) and related proceedings concerning instructional materials in South Carolina and religious families receiving opt-outs in St. Louis Park, MN.
Featuring:

Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has initiated a proceeding that proposes to require radio and TV broadcasters as well as cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to include a disclaimer on all political advertisements that contain content generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The requirement would apply to both candidate and issue ads. The broadcasters of the ads also would be required to include a notice in their online political files disclosing the ad’s use of AI. The FCC’s rulemaking raises serious questions regarding the agency’s statutory authority to adopt the proposed rule and whether the Federal Election Commission has sole authority to administer federal election laws so that the FCC proposal is preempted. Moreover, as a matter of policy, objections have been raised regarding the FCC’s proposal. With the election just weeks away, a panel composed of notable experts will discuss and debate the FCC’s proposal.
Featuring:

Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner
Chris Lewis, President, Public Knowledge
Prof. Bradley Smith, Former FEC Chairman; Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Moderator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation

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 granted the FDA's cert petition and the court heard oral argument on Monday, December 2. Join us in discussing the argument and considering which way the Court might take this.
Featuring:

Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

--
To register, click the link above.

With the upcoming shift in presidential administrations, there is a potential for significant changes within federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission. This webinar will speculate and discuss exactly what sorts of changes may be in store for the SEC agenda. Our two speakers will address questions surrounding topics like the agency’s enforcement approach, the future of cryptocurrency, climate regulation, exemptive relief post-Chevron, and the timeline according to which these changes may happen. Join us as we consider what the next administration’s SEC agenda could look like.
Featuring:

C. Wallace DeWitt, Securities Lawyer
Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

--
To register, click the link above.