FedSoc Forums

PowerPoint Slides

This program will provide a short introduction to the world of E-Discovery, predominantly in the civil litigation setting. Join us as Prof. Ted Hirt discusses E-Discovery and some related topics: the challenge of "big data," how the Federal Civil Rules deal with E-discovery (including case scheduling and orders), and "proportionality." Additionally, this program will cover topics including dealing with the client, safeguarding privileges, ways to deploy technologies in E-discovery production, and sanctions or measures for the destruction of information.
Featuring:

Prof. Ted Hirt, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School

The free speech rights (or lack thereof) of K-12 students has always been a unique area in the realm of First Amendment litigation. Cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District from 60 years ago established that students do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, though subsequent cases have articulated that those First Amendment rights are not inherently co-extensive with the rights of adults. Schools often implement policies aimed at preserving the safety of students or that seek to limit “offensive” or “inappropriate” messaging which can constrain or inhibit the free speech of their students. To what degree that restriction of a constitutional right is permissible has become a question for the courts in a series of cases where students (or their representatives) are challenging school policies on the basis of alleged unconstitutional restriction of students’ First Amendment rights.
Join us for an update on several of these cases including:

D.A. v Tri-County Area Schools (Michigan student forbidden from wearing a "Let's Go Brandon Sweatshirt.") -
L.M. v Town of Middleborough (Massachusetts school forbade student from wearing "There are only two genders" tshirt).
B.B. v Capistrano Unified School District (California school punished kindergartner over "All Lives Matter" in drawing).

Featuring:

Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
Caleb Trotter, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together

On July 15th, Teamster’s president Sean O’Brien surprised the country by becoming the first head of the nation’s largest labor union to speak at the Republican National Convention. Former president Trump chose J.D. Vance as his running mate, on the same day. Vance, a longtime advocate for disaffected blue-collar workers, reflects a larger populist swing within some parts of the conservative movement. The Republican party, long characterized by some as hostile to unions, now includes many who argue in favor of laws promoting a reformed vision of organized labor. Are right-wing populists correct in identifying flaws in current labor law? Can supporting organized labor be compatible with conservative governance? What changes to labor law if any, could create a better future for workers, businesses, and the American people?
Featuring:

Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Oren Cass, Executive Director, American Compass
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to shape arbitration law through a strict interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), with each term introducing new nuances. This program will explore Supreme Court decisions from the latest term and examine recent interpretations by federal appeals courts, focusing on their impact on arbitration practice. The panel will offer practical insights into the evolving landscape of arbitration law, updates for attorneys to ensure compliance with the latest legal developments, and strategies to optimize arbitration for clients currently using or considering arbitration.
Featuring:

Charles Bennett, Trial Lawyer, Bennett Legal
Richard Faulker, Attorney, Faulkner ADR Law, Of Counsel, Bennett Legal
Philip J. Loree, Jr., Partner, The Loree Law Firm

Judicial selection in the states is not uniform, but most states have some form of judicial elections. Some are contested elections--whether partisan or nonpartisan--and some involve uncontested retention elections. During an election, judicial candidates must abide by ethical rules that explicitly restrict their ability to speak freely.
What are the implications, if any, for restrictions on judicial speech arising from different systems of selecting and retaining judges? How do judicial campaign experiences inform free speech perspectives? Join us for a conversation about how judicial elections intersect with free speech rights.
Featuring:

Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Hon. J. Brett Busby, Justice, Texas Supreme Court
Hon. Daniel Kelly, Former Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court
(Moderator) Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)


Related Reading(s):

Op. Ed By Justice Bolick
Other Materials

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives have become ubiquitous on campuses and in workplaces across the nation, particularly after the death of George Floyd in late May 2020 and the rapid rise of "anti-racism" initiatives. These efforts, frequently using racially exclusionary or derogatory terminology and eligibility, were considered by some legal experts to be of doubtful legality. But after the Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC (SFFA), DEI practices have come under expanded legal challenge. This program will examine the legal viability of race-focused DEI practices in light of SFFA, reviewing practices, challenges, and case developments.
Featuring:

Giovanni D. Cicione, Chair, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights
Nicole Levitt, Staff Attorney, Women Against Abuse Inc.
(Moderator) Prof. William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Founder of the Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org)

CLE Cost:

$25/Member
$50/Non-Member

To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page.


CLE Info

The regulatory landscape for Private Funds has changed dramatically over the past decade, culminating in the SEC’s recent Private Fund Advisers regulation, which was recently struck down by the Fifth Circuit. In the wake of this important court decision, what’s next? Will the SEC go back to the drawing board? Is more regulation even needed? What broader implications can we draw for the legal landscape and regulatory governance principles going forward?
Featuring:

David Blass, Partner, Simpson Thacher
Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Jennifer Choi, CEO, Institutional Limited Partners Association
Moderator: Lindsey Keljo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Head of Asset Management Group, SIFMA

--
To register, click the link above.

This event will survey the SEC's current involvement in the cryptocurrency field. The conversation will include best practices for defending against SEC enforcement inquiries or investigations in the crypto industry. It will also examine the proactive legal approaches individuals and companies can take against the SEC, detailing how, when, and why they can bring suit. This discussion will conclude with a conversation about private sector initiatives to establish a sound disclosure protocol to avoid fraud and improve crypto asset disclosure.
Featuring:

Rachel Barnett, CLO of IEX Exchange
Prof. Chris Brummer, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Financial Technology at Georgetown Law
William R. McLucas, Partner, WilmerHale
Brian Richman, Associate, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher
Patrick Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner (Moderator)

Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Merck argues that the drug pricing program violates the First Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, claiming it forces them to accept government-dictated prices and infringes on their property rights. The federal government, represented by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and others, contends that Merck's arguments are unfounded and that the negotiation program is essential for reducing drug costs and ensuring the financial stability of Medicare. The case could significantly impact drug pricing, Medicare costs, and federal regulatory authority in healthcare.
The case was filed on June 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 19, 2023, Merck filed an amended complaint adding its subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC as a second plaintiff. The case is ongoing, with both parties having filed motions for summary judgment.
Join us for a litigation update on Merck et al. v. Becerra et al. with Yaakov M. Roth, one of the lead attorneys at Jones Day representing Merck & Co., Inc.

In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the plaintiff, Sylvia Gonzalez, argued that her arrest was a retaliatory action violating her First Amendment rights, stemming from her political activities as a newly elected city council member who had organized a petition to remove the city manager. She contended that she should be allowed to pursue her retaliatory arrest claim based on the circumstances surrounding her case. On the other hand, the defendants, including Mayor Edward Trevino and other city officials, maintained that the arrest was lawful and based on probable cause, as Gonzalez was accused of stealing a government document. They argued that the existence of probable cause should bar Gonzalez's retaliatory arrest claim, relying on the precedent set in Nieves v. Bartlett, which generally prevents such claims when probable cause exists. The defendants also contended that Gonzalez failed to provide sufficient evidence of similarly situated individuals who were not arrested in comparable circumstances, which they believed was necessary to overcome the probable cause bar.
On June 20, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.