FedSoc Forums

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice to "ensure that Federal policies promote equal access to robust broadband internet access service by prohibiting deployment discrimination."

Watch this discussion on the FCC's ongoing efforts to effectuate this portion of the statute and how policymakers can best achieve the goal of equitable broadband deployment. The discussion considered what discrimination means in this context, whether broadband providers engage in it, and what regulatory actions would best ensure Americans have access to the broadband they need.

Featuring:

--Diana Eisner, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy, USTelecom
--Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
--Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director, United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
--Sanford Williams, Special Advisor to Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Deputy Managing Director, The Office of the Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission
--Moderator: Joe Kane, Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States after swearing an oath to support the Constitution from ever holding public office again. In light of this Disqualification Clause, some have called for participants in the riot that occurred on January 6, 2021 to be barred from future elections.

Who has the authority to enforce this provision, the states or Congress? Normally states cannot add requirements for holding public office, but is this different, or is enforcement left to Congress itself through its ability to expel members?

These questions took on new relevance on September 6, 2022, when New Mexico Judge Francis Mathew ordered that Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office effective immediately for his participation in the January 6 riot under the Disqualification Clause. While this decision is likely to be appealed, it could have serious implications for members of Congress and/or former President Donald J. Trump.

Watch a discussion on these important issues between James Bopp, Jr., who represented Congressman Madison Cawthorn against challenges to his office under the Disqualification Clause, and Pressly Millen, who represented the challengers to Congressman Cawthorn. That challenge was mooted after Congressman Cawthorn failed to win his primary, leaving the underlying questions unanswered. Joining Mr. Bopp and Mr. Millen will be Kory Langhofer, who successfully represented Congressman Andy Biggs before the Arizona Supreme Court on a Disqualification Clause challenge, and moderator Devin Watkins, an Attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Featuring:

--James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
--Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft
--Pressly M. Millen, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
--Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

The government of Communist China has insisted – and the U.S. government has officially acknowledged since 1979 – that Taiwan is part of China. Does that mean international law imposes no limits on Chinese coercion or intimidation of Taiwan? Do U.S. international agreements in the region require (or prohibit) U.S. military aid to Taiwan in the event of open conflict with China? Would the President need authorization from Congress to deploy U.S. forces there if conflict seems imminent? Our panelists will discuss the way these questions are likely to be viewed by other governments as well as by policymakers in Washington.
Featuring:
Michael Mazza, Nonresident Fellow, AEI
Mary Kissel, Executive Vice President and Senior Policy Advisor, Stephens, Inc.
Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
—
To register, please click the link above.

Events of 2022 brought a "crypto winter," with average prices of cryptocurrencies falling about 70% from their 2021 highs, the bankruptcy of several crypto companies, the complete collapse of a popular so-called "stable" coin, unexpected suspensions of withdrawals by some crypto issuers, large losses by individual investors, and heightened efforts toward expanded regulation and legislation. What does this all mean going forward? Was this simply the end of another bubble and popular delusion which will now wither? Or was it the winnowing out of a typical innovative overexpansion, with a more mature ongoing cryptocurrency industry continuing, perhaps one with significant regulation? This webinar will examine where crypto will go from here.

Featuring:
Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
Alexandra Gaiser, Director of Regulatory Affairs, River Financial
Steven Lofchie, Corporate Partner, Fried Frank
J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, the Mises Institute
---
To register, click the link above

The past few years have witnessed a flurry of new scholarship related to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its associated citizenship declarations. Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University, is the co-author with Randy Barnett of The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. Christopher Green, a professor at the University of Mississippi, is the author of Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, as well as a review of Evan's book, to which he and Barnett have responded. This historical debate is not merely of academic interest, however. If the Supreme Court were to view the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in a new light, what would the implications be for labor law?

Featuring:

--Professor Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University
--Professor Christopher R. Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law

In his recent book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, Professor David Bernstein breaks down the history of American racial classifications, and raises questions about the classifications’ coherence, logic, and fairness.
Professor Bernstein joined us to discuss his book and the role that racial classifications should or should not play in our society.

Featuring:
--Professor David Bernstein, University Professor and Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm

Please join these experts as they review religious liberty at the Supreme Court in 2022.

Featuring:
--Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President & CEO, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University
--Moderator: Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology

This summer, the state of Arizona passed a law that will prohibit the ability of the public and press to video record police officers in certain situations. Alexa L. Gervasi, the Executive Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, will join this program to argue that this law is a prior restraint on free speech that does not pass judicial review under strict scrutiny. Larry H. James, the Managing Partner of Crabbe Brown & James LLP, will offer his perspective in defense of the new law. In addition to the constitutional implications of this restriction on recording, our speakers will explore what this regulation could mean for the future of policing.

Featuring:
--Alexa L. Gervasi, Executive Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution
--Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
--Moderator: Stephen Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Stuart Reges is an award-winning professor at the University of Washington in the Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. The Allen School encourages professors to include on their syllabi a statement recognizing that the land on which the university sits was once owned by indigenous tribes. Professor Reges disagreed with the University’s “Indigenous Land Acknowledgement Statement” — instead, he challenged his students and fellow faculty to consider the utility and performative nature of land acknowledgments by including a modified statement on his syllabus.

The University's administrators later concluded that the professor's viewpoint was “offensive” and “inappropriate,” and created a "shadow" section of Professor Reges's class. The school next launched an investigation of the professor under a policy that prohibits “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” speech. The investigation has been ongoing since March 2, 2022, and carries the threat of termination.

On July 13, 2022, Reges sued University of Washington officials to challenge the investigation and punishment as viewpoint discriminatory, and the policy as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Representing Reges is Josh Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who joins us to discuss the status of the case.

Featuring:

--Joshua Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fund Fellow, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

In recent years, universities have increasingly required 'diversity statements' from faculty seeking jobs, tenure, or promotion. But statements describing faculty's contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion are also increasingly under attack. Criticisms first made in tweets and blog posts have expanded into prominent opinion pieces and, more recently, law review articles. These attacks are having an effect. Within universities, faculty-wide resolutions for and against mandatory diversity statements have been called and academic freedom committees have been asked to intervene. Outside universities, lawyers are recruiting plaintiffs to challenge diversity statement requirements in court.

Join our experts in a discussion on Professor Brian Soucek’s recent article in the UC Davis Law Review about these diversity statements fleshing out the criticisms and developing a framework to address if universities can require diversity statements without violating either the Constitution or academic freedom.

Featuring:

--Professor Brian Soucek, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Fellow, UC Davis School of Law
--Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law