FedSoc Forums

Each month, a panel of experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this program are included below.

• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether Harvard University is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by purportedly penalizing Asian American applicants.

• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (October 31) – Whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions; and whether a university can reject race-neutral admissions without proving that such action would damage the student body or standard of education.

• Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Cochran (November 7) – Whether a federal district has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an SEC administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding based on an alleged constitutional defect regarding the removal of administrative law judges.

• Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n (November 7) – Whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders.

• Haaland v. Brackeen (November 9) – Equal protection clause; whether the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 violates the anti commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment.

Featuring:

• Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
• Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
• Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
• Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
• Moderator: Amy Howe, Howe on the Court

What did the American Founders mean when they declared religious liberty to be an “inherent,” “natural” and “inalienable” right? Does the right to religious liberty provide religious exemptions from generally applicable laws? What is wrong with a state establishment of religion?

In Religious Liberty and the American Founding, Vincent Phillip Muñoz addresses these questions and others, offering a novel interpretation of Founders’ philosophy and constitutionalism of religious liberty. Drawing on early state constitutions, declarations of religious freedom, Founding-era debates, and the First Amendment’s drafting record, the book documents and articulates the Founders’ understanding of religious liberty as an inalienable natural right, uncovers what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, and constructs a natural rights jurisprudence of religious liberty, exploring and explaining how the Founders’ principles would adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues. Contrary to what many might assume, Muñoz contends that adherence to the Founders would lead neither to consistently conservative nor consistently liberal results, but rather to a novel church-state jurisprudence that, in most cases, would return authority from the judiciary to the American people.

Join us for a conversation of Professor Muñoz’s new book, with Professor Muñoz himself and moderated by Michael McConnell, the director of Stanford Law School’s Constitutional Law Center.

Featuring:
--Vincent Phillip Muñoz , Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--Moderator: Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court will address the dormant commerce clause in the context of a California law regarding the housing of farm animals. Specifically, the Court will decide "whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause..."
Oral arguments took place on October 11. That afternoon, the Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro joined us to analyze the arguments and examine the issues underlying the case.
Featuring:

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

The Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit between rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation regarding Warhol’s works based on Goldsmith’s photo of the musician Prince. The fair use doctrine excuses from liability certain unlicensed uses of copyrighted works. The question before the Court in Warhol v. Goldsmith is whether Warhol’s creation of a series of paintings copied from the photo, and the licensure of those paintings to periodicals, constitutes a fair use. Underlying the case are core intellectual property questions about the nature and scope of the fair use doctrine.
Following oral arguments on October 12, Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the respondent (Goldsmith), joined us to break down the case.
Featuring:

Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shocked the world – and directed renewed attention to the global energy system. Suddenly, the topic of energy security rose to the forefront as consumers across the globe began to feel the impact of the conflict when filling their gas tanks and paying their electricity bills. As Europe struggles to disentangle itself from dependence upon Russian energy sources, the United States and others have directed renewed focus toward their supply chains for both hydrocarbon fuels and renewable power generation. Our panel of energy experts will discuss these recent events and consider the legal and policy levers available to the United States and its allies to enhance their energy security.

Featuring:

--Prof. James Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
--George Fibbe, Partner, Baker Botts, Former Deputy General Counsel, Department of Energy
--Moderator: Daniel G. West, Vice President, SCF Partners

Religious employers are exempt under §§ 702(a) and 703(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.2000e—1(a) and 2000e—2(e)(1), when sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. However questions can still arise when Religious employers undertake actions that would allegedly be problematic under Title VII for non-religious employers. What is the scope of the exemption? What is the definition of religion? What is the definition of a religious employer able to invoke the exemption?
Additionally, is the exemption waived if the employer is a recipient of federal financial assistance? How does the exemption in Title VII compare with other defenses available to the employer such as the ministerial exception (Church Autonomy Theory), Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment’s free-speech and free-exercise clauses? What if the religious employer is sued in a similar claim under a state or municipal human rights act?
Experts Sharon Gustafson, Jennifer Goldstein, and Carl Esbeck will discuss some of these questions in this webinar on the extent of exemptions extended to religious employers under Title VII.

Featuring:
--Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Missouri
--Sharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLC
--Jennifer Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

One of the longest-standing environmental law challenges is how to define the scope of waters regulated under the Clean Water Act known as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). After decades of regulatory uncertainty, the Supreme Court has again taken up a case that may provide clarity. On October 3rd, the Court will hear oral argument in Sackett v. EPA, the first case of this new term and the second time the case will be reviewed by the high court. Perhaps this time the Court will definitively determine what is a WOTUS. Will the Court definitively determine what is a WOTUS?
Join us for a discussion on this important case with Damien Schiff (arguing for petitioners), Tony Francois (represented petitioners in the Ninth Circuit), and William Snape (Director of the American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Environment and Energy Law). The panel will be moderated by Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Matt Leopold, who served previously as EPA general counsel and assisted in drafting the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule defining WOTUS.
Featuring:
Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. William Snape, Director of Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of Law
Moderator: Matt Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth
---
To register, click the link above.

On October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan.
Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state’s population. With these new lines, only one of the state’s seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.
The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.
We broke down the argument on the same day, October 4, 2022.

Featuring:
--David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
--Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Faced with relentless cyberattacks and intrusions that could imperil democracy, how should Western nations respond? This teleforum will discuss problems in the application of existing law and norms to reduce international cyber conflict. It will also explore possible new approaches involving a concentrated and coordinated deterrence strategy as well as technological innovations to secure vital areas of cyberspace.

Mike Lewis was a naval aviator, and then a renowned law professor, widely admired by other scholars and practitioners. He was a great friend of the Federalist Society, appearing at dozens of lawyer and student chapter events, as well as the 2014 National Convention. He was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds a Teleforum in his honor.

Featuring:

--Prof. Lucas Kello, Associate Professor of International Relations, Oxford University
--Prof. Eric Jensen, Associate Professor of Law, Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School
--Moderator: Vince Vitkowsky, Partner, Gfeller Laurie LLP

—

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases that will be covered are included below.


Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (October 3) – environmental law; water policy regulations; administrative law


Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (October 3) – State claims dispute over travelers checks; financial services & e-commerce


Merrill v. Milligan (October 11) – election law; whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act


National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (October 11) – interstate commerce, dormant commerce clause


Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt (October 12) – labor law; regulatory policy on overtime pay and exemptions; Fair Labor Standard’s Act


Featuring:

Donald Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Charles Yates, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Moderator: Adam Gustafson, Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at Boeing

---
To register, please click the link above.