FedSoc Forums

In October of 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards for air quality, some of which had to do with air pollution which is carried across state borders, from “upwind” states to “downwind” states. The EPA required these states to submit plans of implementation but then rejected 21 of those plans as insufficient, instead publishing a federal plan which would enforce certain more stringent ozone pollution controls. This prompted several states and companies to challenge the rule and request a temporary block to its implementation, claiming the controls could lead to power grid emergencies. The EPA and its supporters claim, however, that a stay to the rule could critically affect public health and air quality. The Supreme Court did not speak to those issues, however, but instead stayed the rule after finding a likelihood of success on the claim that the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious.
Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.
Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.
Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC

Garland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the (then standing) Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s authority.
The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024.
Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence.
Featuring:

Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Prof. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco
(Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

In March of this year, the U.S. Justice Department and 16 states filed a sweeping complaint against Apple alleging that it has monopolized and attempted to monopolize US markets for smartphones and “performance” smartphones. At issue is an array of current and past Apple policies and restrictions governing the way that third party applications access and engage on the iPhone platform. Plaintiffs claim that Apple’s failure to open its platform prevents the development of “super apps” and cross-platform functionality that would make it easier and more attractive for Apple users to select or switch to rival smartphones, while in contrast, Apple characterizes its practices as a procompetitive way to differentiate its products and make them more attractive and safe for consumers to use.
As this litigation progresses, what are likely to be the most hotly contested—and possibly determinative—issues of fact and law? How will they affect the outcome of the case, including with respect to potential remedies, and further development of the law of monopolization? And, considering how the Apple complaint fits into the Biden Administration’s view of competition in high-tech platform markets, what impact could a potential change in Administrations have?

Featuring:

Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, Associate Dean for Research, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law
Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, former Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Moderator: Deborah Garza, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP

--
To register, click the link above.

Join us for a webinar featuring Manhattan Institute fellow Tim Rosenberger, who will delve into the landmark case of Hile v. Michigan. On November 6th, 2023, the Sixth Circuit upheld Michigan's Blaine Amendment, which bars public financial support for parochial and other nonpublic schools, raising significant questions about religious discrimination and equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs filed a petition of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that these so-called "neutral" amendments often mask deep-seated biases, as evidenced by Michigan's historical animosity towards Catholic schools.
Learn about the broader implications for religious freedom, the precedent set by recent Supreme Court decisions, and the potential ripple effects across other states with similar provisions. Don’t miss this opportunity to understand the constitutional arguments and engage in a pivotal discussion on the future of educational rights and religious liberties in America.
Featuring:
Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute

On July 9th, the Federal Trade Commission released a Staff Interim Report on the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Industry. This panel will discuss the state of the PBM marketplace, the staff’s key findings, Commission statements surrounding the Report, and how this Report compares to earlier FTC market studies.
Featuring:

Rani Habash, Partner, Dechert
Dan Gilman, Senior Scholar, Competition Policy, International Center for Law & Economics, Former Attorney Advisor, FTC Office of Policy Planning
Professor Mike Shor, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics
Moderator: Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley, Former Attorney Advisor, FTC Office of Policy Planning

--
To register, click the link above.

In October of 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards for air quality, some of which had to do with air pollution which is carried across state borders, from “upwind” states to “downwind” states. The EPA required these states to submit plans of implementation but then rejected 21 of those plans as insufficient, instead publishing a federal plan which would enforce certain more stringent ozone pollution controls. This prompted several states and companies to challenge the rule and request a temporary block to its implementation, claiming the controls could lead to power grid emergencies. The EPA and its supporters claim, however, that a stay to the rule could critically affect public health and air quality. The Supreme Court did not speak to those issues, however, but instead stayed the rule after finding a likelihood of success on the claim that the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious.
Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.
Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.
Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC

Apprenticeship has been a significant focus of the Biden administration, and previously the Trump administration, with each taking markedly different approaches. The Trump Administration expanded apprenticeship through regulations making programs easier to establish through industry-recognized apprenticeship programs. The Biden administration rescinded these regulations and is now proceeding with its own proposed rule focused on registered apprenticeship programs.
In this webinar, a panel of experts will compare the two approaches. The panel will also provide insights on the pending apprenticeship rulemaking, including new potential regulatory requirements in the DEI area. The panel will also discuss the heavy reliance on a combination of regulatory and subregulatory guidance in the apprenticeship area, including in implementing green energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, and how this may be impacted by the recent Loper Bright and Relentless decisions ending Chevron deference.
Featuring:

Ryan Craig, Managing Director, Achieve Partners
Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
Hon. John Pallasch, Founder and CEO, One Workforce Solutions
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee
(Moderator) Craig Leen, Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.
The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.
Featuring:

Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

---
To register, click the link above.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Idaho, arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts a state law that restricts abortion in all but limited circumstances. The district court sided with the Biden administration and issued a preliminary injunction on Idaho’s law. On June 27th, 2024, the Supreme Court (6-3) dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted instead of determining the statutory interpretation question. It vacated its earlier stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction against Idaho’s abortion law.
Join Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Center for Life & Regulatory Practice at Alliance Defending Freedom, for a breakdown of this decision and its implications on the legal issues surrounding abortion in the post-Roe era.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asked whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702.
Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that sought to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment.
This 6-3 decision held that a claim under the APA does not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
Please join us as we discuss the case and decision recently released by the Court.
Featuring:

Molly Nixon, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

---
For more information, check out this blog post by Michael J. Showalter.
To register, click the link above.