FedSoc Forums

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District concerned a Christian student club's ability to meet on campuses in the San Jose School District. Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) clubs had served students in the San Jose High Schools for over a decade, until 2019 when, following a teacher's complaints about the clubs' requirement that student leaders affirm their faith, the school district revoked the clubs' status as associated student bodies and kicked them off campus. FCA brought suit, and the district court sided with the school district. In 2022 the 9th Circuit reversed the district Court's decision, and upon the district's appeal to rehear the case en banc. reaffirmed that decision in September 2023, declaring that the district could not discriminate against the FCA clubs based on their religious leadership standards under the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act.
Join us for a litigation update on this important case with Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented the FCA in this case.
Featuring:

Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

Will the 118th Congress succeed in creating a statutory framework for effective regulation of cryptocurrencies? House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry and our expert panel discussed the status of this complex legislative issue, the competition among regulators and potential division of regulatory jurisdiction, the differences between stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, federal vs. state regulation, what financial reports and other disclosures should be required, and what key decisions must be made.

Featuring:
--Hon. Patrick McHenry, United States Representative, NC-10
--Brian P. Brooks, Managing Partner, Valor Capital Group; Former Acting Comptroller of the Currency
--Patrick D. Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner; Adjunct Professor, Cornell Law School
--Gary Kalbaugh, Deputy General Counsel, ING Americas; Special Professor of Law, Hofstra University
--Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law, PLLC
--[Moderator] J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding

In her new book, The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves, Alexandra Hudson explores the question – how can a reinvigorated dedication to civility help our nation come together despite deep and growing differences? She argues that our difficulties in this arena are not new; luckily, the solutions aren’t either. Drawing wisdom from a host of ancient philosophers and influential thinkers, Hudson encourages Americans to turn inward and commit themselves to live tolerantly. She contends that our Republic depends on it.

Please join us as Alexandra Hudson sits down with The Federalist Society’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Dean Reuter, to discuss The Soul of Civility.

The 2023 Ron Rotunda Memorial Webinar featured a conversation with Gregory Jacob and Prof. Josh Blackman discussing the current state of the legal culture and the future of the legal profession.
Professor Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual Teleforum in his honor.
Ron Rotunda was not only a renowned professor but also a mentor to many, including Prof. Josh Blackman, who wrote heartfelt remembrances about him on his blog here and in the Chapman Law Review here.

Featuring:
--Gregory Frederick Jacob, Parter, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP
--Moderator: Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience investigates the questions that surround the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause, breaking down the practical history of establishment and disestablishment in the United States of religion as law and argues that a Clause often seen as a defense against religion is valuable for promoting religious freedom and diversity in America. Prof. Michael McConnel, co-author of the book, and Prof. Vincent Munoz discussed these themes and the history of the Establishment Clause in the United States.

Featuring:
--Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
--Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--(Moderator) Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Pacific Legal

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.

Pulsifer v. United States (October 2) - Federal Criminal Law; Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).
CFPB v. Community Financial Servs. Ass'n of America, Ltd. (October 3) - Constitutional Law, Appropriations; Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (October 4) - Constitutional Law, Americans with Disabilities Act; Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
Murray v. UBS Securities LLC (October 10) - Labor Law, Sarbanes Oxley Act; Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (October 10) - Admiralty; Whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (October 11) - Election Law; Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent. Additionally, the court's handling of the alternative-map requirement, its treatment of the relationship between race and politics, the assessment of racial predominance in District 1, and the consideration of intentional discrimination are all under scrutiny.

Featuring:

Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
Brian Johnson, Managing Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation Group, Patomak Global Partners
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Moderator: Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

In June, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi completed a highly-publicized visit to Washington that included a state dinner and an address to a joint meeting of Congress. This visit put a strengthened bilateral relationship on display—the United States and India have deepened cooperation on defense, public health, and economic matters in recent years. Yet, key differences continue to irritate relations, serving as obstacles to the closer partnership that some envision.
This program traced the trajectory of the US-Indian relationship, offering context to strides that've been made since the Cold War ended. With an eye to the future, this panel also evaluates possibilities for bilateral relations moving forward, examining areas of disagreement, and takes into consideration each country's strategic visions, priorities, and limitations.

Featuring:
--Sadanand Dhume, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
--[Moderator] Nitin Nainani, Student Liaison, International Law & National Security Practice Group

Many state constitutional provisions are worded similarly to provisions of the federal Constitution. At times, this has led some to simply assume as binding or highly persuasive the interpretations of the latter on the former. But to what degree should interpretations of the United States Constitution inform a particular state’s interpretation of its own foundational document? We hosted a lively discussion of this important issue by a distinguished panel.

Featuring:
--Judge David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
--Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
--Associate Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren, Georgia Supreme Court
--Justice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
--Moderator: Justice Sarah K. Campbell, Tennessee Supreme Court

Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Weber is a challenge to California’s Assembly Bill 979 requiring racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation diversity on boards of public corporations located in California. The Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment is arguing that the Bill violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On May 15, 2023, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the law is unconstitutional and enjoined its continued enforcement.

Additionally, California has a related statute that requires sex-based quotas for corporate boards. Both statutes are being concurrently challenged in multiple federal and state court cases. All of the federal cases – including the Alliance case – have been stayed by the Ninth Circuit. The state court cases are active and going forward.

This Litigation Update discussed the District Court’s decision in Alliance and reviewed the different cases, where they stand, and what might come next.

Featuring:
--Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

In Bates v. Pakseresht, Oregon mother-of-5 Jessica Bates is challenging the Oregon Department of Human Services’ (OHDS) rules that require all potential adoptive families to affirm and support the sexual orientation, gender identity, and/ or gender expression of any potential children placed with them.
Ms. Bates asserts that OHDS’s rules violate the “Free Speech,” and “Freedom of Assembly” clauses of the First Amendment, and has sued in Federal Court to have the OHDS rules deemed unconstitutional.
Jonathan Scruggs, lead attorney representing Ms. Bates from the Alliance Defending Freedom, joined us to provide an update on this live litigation affecting free speech, freedom of religious practice, state regulations, and child safety.

Featuring:
--Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Litigation Strategy & Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
--(Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP