FedSoc Forums

In 2022, the Florida Legislature passed a bill titled the Individual Freedom Act. The bill is better known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act, or the Stop WOKE Act, and it has become a cultural flashpoint across the country.

The bill seeks to “protect individual freedoms and prevent discrimination in the workplace and in public schools.” While the bill explicitly authorizes “age-appropriate” classroom discussion of topics such as sexism, slavery, and racial discrimination, it prohibits instruction meant to “indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of individual freedom or state academic standards.” The bill went into effect on July 1, 2022, and it places new restrictions on Florida’s public schools, colleges, universities, and corporations.

Proponents of the bill argue that aspects of progressive ideology – often referred to as wokeness – are being aggressively pushed on students, parents, and employees, and the effect is tantamount to ideological oppression and indoctrination. Opponents of the bill say that the Stop WOKE Act infringes upon freedom of speech and thought. Several opponents – including prominent organizations like the ACLU and FIRE – have taken to the courts to block or pare back the bill’s influence.

Ryan Newman serves as General Counsel to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and he is responsible for driving Florida’s litigation defense of the Stop WOKE Act in cases such as Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, Novoa v. Diaz, and Honeyfund.com Inc. v. DeSantis.

Featuring:
--Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

On Monday, March 27, 2023 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Hansen. At issue in Hansen is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), a federal criminal statute that prohibits encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial or financial benefit sometimes termed “the encouragement provision”, violates the First Amendment.

Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts.

Hansen follows on the heels of another case with similar questions. Back in 2020, in United States v. Sinening-Smith, SCOTUS reversed a Ninth Circuit Court decision that attempted to strike down the encouragement provision on the grounds the decision attempted to address an issue that was outside of the issue before the court. Hansen now brings those same constitutional issues to the fore.

In this Courthouse Steps webinar, we will broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the same day it is argued.

Featuring:
--Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

This case presents an intersection between Native Americans’ free exercise rights and the Government’s power to regulate its territories.

In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a trade of land between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. Resolution Copper gave the government 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands. In exchange, the Government gave Resolution Copper 2,400 acres containing the third largest copper deposit in the world.

Within the 2,400-acre tract of land is Chi’chil Bildagoteel, or “Oak Flat”, a place of central spiritual importance to the Western Apache. It is the direct corridor to their Creator and the site of numerous religious ceremonies. If Resolution Copper is given the land, the religious site will be destroyed and turned into a mine.

Apache Stronghold sued to prohibit the land trade under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause, and under a theory that the trade violates the Government’s trust obligation to the Apaches. The United States argued that pursuant to its constitutional authority over the territories and existing caselaw that the trade was lawful.
The District Court rejected a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. And the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc this month.

Apache Stronghold again presses its three claims. Centrally, it argues that the United States has substantially burdened the Apaches’ religious exercise by authorizing the transfer and destruction of Oak Flat—rendering their religious exercise impossible.

The United States argues a line of precedent—culminating in Employment Division v. Smith—bar Apache Stronghold’s claims. The Government particularly relies on Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association, which permitted the U.S. Forest Service to develop a road through government land that would traverse a tribal holy site, stating, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” The United States argues that RFRA and the remainder of Apache Stronghold’s claims do not undermine the holding in Lyng.
At stake is a religious site of central importance to a native tribe that cannot be replaced and development of the third largest copper deposit in the world.

In this recorded webinar, an excellent debate team discuss this en banc hearing. On behalf of Apache Stronghold, Luke Goodrich, VP and Senior Counsel for Becket, who is serving as lead counsel for Apache Stronghold. And defending the United States’ position, Anthony J. Ferate, who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Support of Appellee United States.

Featuring:
--Luke Goodrich, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Becket
--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts

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.

• Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic Intl. Inc. (March 21) - Intellectual Property, International Law; Whether the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark can bring a lawsuit for damages for infringement overseas.
• Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (March 21) - Litigation, E Commerce; Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.
• Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (March 22) - Intellectual Property; Whether and when trademark law prohibits a spoof of a company’s brand.
• Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (March 27) - Intellectual Property, Medicine; When a patent applicant must provide a description of its invention that would enable a “skilled artisan” to make and use the invention, what must the applicant show to meet that requirement?
• Smith v. United States (March 27) - Criminal Law; What is the proper remedy – acquittal or a new trial – when an appeals court concludes that one of the counts on which a defendant was convicted was tried in the wrong place?
• Lora v. United States (March 28) - Criminal Law; Whether federal criminal sentencing laws require a New York man convicted for his role in a drug-trafficking murder to be sentenced to consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
• Samia v. United States (March 29) - Criminal Law; Whether prosecutors violated a defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment when they admitted a confession from one of his co-defendants, redacted so that it did not use the defendant’s name.

Featuring:
--Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law
--Prof. Stephen Ware, Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law
--Robert Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP
--Adam Mathews, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney, Faurecia
--Robert "Bob" McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
--Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

Along with the "crypto crackdown" by financial regulators in the wake of huge cryptocurrency losses and bankruptcies, Congress is discussing crypto legislation.

The House Financial Services Committee has a new Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion chaired by Congressman French Hill (R-AR). Chairman Hill will join us for a keynote presentation, followed by an expert panel discussion. Among other questions, the webinar will consider: Will there be crypto legislation? What might it and what should it provide or not provide? What will be the most contentious issues? What related oversight should Congress provide?

J.C. Boggs will moderate the program and the panel will feature Dina Ellis Rochkind, Alexandra Harrison Gaiser, Patrick McCarty, and Patrick Daugherty.

In 1982, the U.S. Marine Corps discovered that one quarter of the water wells on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has estimated that as many as one million military and civilian staff and their families might have been exposed to contaminated drinking water between the early 1950s and late 1980s.

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 – one section of the larger PACT Act – was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 10, 2022. The law provides veterans who served on Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 with two years to bring claims in the Eastern District of North Carolina related to this toxic water exposure. Over 15,000 claims have already been filed and some news outlets have suggested that there could be as many as 500,000 CLJA claims.

Among many interesting topics presented by these claims are fees. Personal injury law firms stand ready to collect billions. The American Tort Reform Association estimates that firms have spent more than $41 million on targeted advertisements. However, there is some debate about if a fee cap is in place. A 2021 version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act limited attorneys’ fees to between 20 and 25%, but the 2022 version does not contain such a provision. While some firms are prepared to charge up to 40%, others think the Federal Tort Claims Act will cover the Camp Lejeune cases and limit fees to 20% of claimant recovery.

In this recorded webinar, legal experts provide an update and a discussion of the many issues associated with the large scale litigation.

Featuring:
--Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
--Prof. Paul Figley, Professor of Legal Rhetoric, American University Washington College of Law
--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman

President Biden has directed the Department of Education to implement a national program of blanket cancellation of federal student loans. The Department has complied by announcing two debt-cancellation programs. The first program—a plan to cancel $10,000 of loans per debtor—proceeds under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES) Act. On February 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard argument in two cases challenging the Department’s claim of statutory authority for this program (Nebraska v. Biden and Department of Education v. Brown).

Less well known—but equally significant—is the Department’s other loan-cancellation program. This program is being accomplished through settlement of a nationwide APA class-action that was brought solely to compel the Department to restart lawful adjudications of “borrower-defense” claims. Instead of defending against this limited claim, the Biden Administration has instead entered a settlement agreement that dispenses with adjudication and automatically cancels billions in loans for hundreds of thousands of debtors. The Department claims it has authority for this blanket loan-cancellation program under the Higher Education Act—a claim that would apply to all loans even outside of litigation. A federal district court approved the settlement in November, but several intervening educational institutions have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Is this settlement legal? Is it an example of the reemergence of the sue-and-settle practices of the Obama Administration? How does this case intersect with Nebraska and Brown? This recorded webinar features a discussion with Jesse Panuccio, who represents one of the appealing intervenors.

Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the major questions doctrine requires courts to, “expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” Some argue that the Court’s opinion in the case leaves doubt as to how the doctrine will be applied in future cases and how it will impact future regulatory policy.

In the past, Executive branch agencies have invoked Title IX to introduce many new rules and regulations. Some of these rules and regulations have faced significant opposition from inside and outside of government. Do elements of modern Title IX administration constitute a major question that Congress is best suited to consider? If so, how will this impact the future administration of Title IX regulations?

Join us as Jennifer Braceras and Professor Daniel Farber discuss the future of Title IX in the wake of West Virginia v. EPA.

Featuring:

Jennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center

Professor Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, Berkeley Law

[Moderator] Farnaz Farkish Thompson, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP

In November 2022, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) that significantly reformed the D.C. Criminal Code to “modernize and overhaul” the District’s criminal laws including a reduction in penalties for many violent offenses.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially vetoed the bill citing concerns about some of the changes, but the Council overrode her veto in early 2023. Because D.C. government is not autonomous from the federal government, the legislation requires Congressional approval.

The U.S. House voted to nullify the bill, and the Senate is slated to vote on whether to block the bill this week. Should the Senate vote to block the D.C. bill, it could be the first time in almost 3 decades that Congress has nullified a D.C. law.

If the Senate votes to nullify the law, the bill will go to President Biden to sign or to veto. While many had anticipated he would veto the resolution, President Biden indicated in a March 2 tweet that he would sign the resolution should it pass.

On March 6, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson wrote a letter to the Senate attempting to withdraw the legislation. Such a withdrawal has not been attempted before. The Senate is still slated to take the issue to a vote later this week.

As the Senate vote approaches, please join us for a webinar featuring an opening address from U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty, followed by a discussion of the bill and what may come next.

Opening Address Featuring:
--Hon. Bill Hagerty, United States Senator, Tennessee
Discussion Featuring:
--Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation

How are we to understand scientific consensus? Who is authorized to speak on behalf of doctors and scientists as a whole, and how do those who present themselves as messengers of the majority reach their material findings? In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, these questions, and others like them, have important consequences for the future of American science and medicine.

The complaint in Missouri v. Biden arises from the controversy surrounding the Great Barrington Declaration, a declaration written in October 2020 and authored by renowned epidemiologists criticizing contemporary, aggressive COVID-19 policies. Plaintiffs allege that the federal government coerced social media companies to silence opposing viewpoints under the pretense of halting “disinformation” and “misinformation” thereby violating the First Amendment.

Hoeg v. Newsom is born of similar allegations at the state level. On September 30, 2022, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 2098 that purports to rein in “disinformation” and “misinformation” about the COVID-19 virus and vaccines. The Bill states that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” Plaintiffs – all physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California – allege that the Bill violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by interfering with their ability to freely communicate to patients and dissent from mainstream viewpoints in their professional capacity as trained doctors.

Observers have noted that achieving scientific consensus on an emergent and politicized disease is very difficult. For example, the purported scientific consensus on masks, lockdowns, natural immunity, and various other COVID-related matters has remained in flux over the past three years. Some argue that government attempts to stifle debate are concerning and illustrate the purpose of the First Amendment.

Jenin Younes is Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) and represents plaintiffs in both cases. In this recorded webinar Jenin delivers updates on these cases and discusses the ongoing power struggle over the dissemination of medical information.

Featuring:
--Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
--[Moderator] Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance