FedSoc Forums

This panel will focus on the pros and cons of zoning, its relation to environmental justice, its detrimental (or beneficial) impacts on minorities, and its consistency (or inconsistency) with property rights. Importantly, the discussion will engage with the scope of modern zoning and what, if anything, should be done to alter, increase, or decrease the government's zoning power. Given the rise of environmental justice in administrative policy and academic debate, this event presents a timely discussion of environmental justice's application to debates over zoning policy in the United States. Criticisms of zoning are on the rise from both the right and left. Critics focus on the ignoble racial history of zoning and its detrimental impacts on the housing market and property values. Defenders instead look to the community stability provided by zoning and the separation of industrial from residential property uses. This panel will present varying views from across the intellectual spectrum featuring both criticisms and defenses of zoning from the right and left.

Featuring:
Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Randall O'Toole, Blogger, The Antiplanner
Richard Rothstein, Distinguished Fellow of the Economic Policy Institute and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Prof. Christopher Serkin, Elisabeth H. and Granville S. Ridley Jr. Chair in Law and Professor of Management at the Owen Graduate School of Management
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts

On March 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Badgerow v. Walters. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that Vaden’s “look-through” approach to determining federal jurisdiction does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.

Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:

--Bradley Hubbard, Senior Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice -Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
--Elizabeth Kiernan, Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But, with the recent ten-year anniversary of the AIA, a new director poised to take the helm at the USPTO, and Congress ramping up debate on reforms to the AIA, is now the time for a reexamination? Our speakers will consider the role of the PTAB in resolving patent disputes and the legality of the exercise of significant discretionary authority by the USPTO Director to implement policy outside the authority granted the director under the AIA.
Featuring:
Joseph Matal, partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Haynes and Boone, LLP
Paul Brian Taylor, who served over 20 years as Counsel and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He also served as Senior Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight.
Moderator: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Former Congressman, United States House of Representatives

On April 25, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Bremerton School District in Washington state removed Coach Joe Kennedy from his job as a public high school football coach after kneeling in brief, quiet prayer on the field after football games. Coach Kennedy filed suit alleging that the school district’s ban on “demonstrative religious activity” violated his First Amendment rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.

In 2019, on appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the petition for review, allowing further factual development. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, writing that the “Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future.”

This year, the Supreme Court granted cert on two questions concerning the interplay of the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses:

Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.
We will break down the argument on the same day, April 25, 2022.

Featuring:

--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

Note: Coach Kennedy is represented by Kirkland & Ellis and First Liberty Institute.

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vacated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capital sentences.

The Court held that the judge's conduct of voir dire conformed to its precedents and reversed the First Circuit's holding that the judge had violated a rule established by that circuit under its supervisor power. The Court held that courts of appeals have no power to circumvent or supplement legal standards established in Supreme Court precedents.

The Court also held that the judge was within his authority to exclude from the penalty trial hearsay evidence of Tsarnaev's brother's involvement in an unrelated murder. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires admission of all mitigating evidence no matter how dubious or how weakly mitigating.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:

--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

In the modern era, U.S. Supreme Court justices have been cited for what some critics characterize as “controversial” statements, sometimes relating to actual or potential matters before the Court. In some instances, these critiques have been accompanied by calls for recusal in specific cases. More recently, critics have turned to the statements not only of the justices themselves, but of the spouse of one particular justice. In light of these recent developments, what are the free speech considerations for justices and their family members? Although there is no formal code of judicial conduct applicable to spouses or even the justices of the Supreme Court, what are the ethical considerations of these actions? Does Congress have authority to impose an ethical code on this co-equal branch of government, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court?

Featuring:

--Prof. Rebecca Roiphe, Trustee Professor of Law and Co-Dean for Faculty Scholarship, New York Law School
--Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School
--Prof. Michael I. Krauss, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

A war is raging in Europe. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Arguing that Ukraine was controlled by nationalists and Nazis, Russia sought to seize major cities including the capitol, Kyiv, and trigger a regime change. After failures to achieve these objectives, Russia now appears to be regrouping its forces to target Ukraine’s eastern region. Russia’s aggression has resulted in significant civilian deaths, the alleged commission of war crimes, and the displacement of millions of Ukrainians. The invasion has also unified the West, with Germany pledging to increase military spending, broad sanctions against Russian leadership and industry, and discussions in Sweden and Finland about joining NATO. Our experts will review events to date, what we can expect from the Kremlin, the Biden administration’s policy, and what comes next. Please join us for this timely conversation.

Featuring:

--Michael Allen, Managing Director, Beacon Global Strategies; Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counter-proliferation Strategy, National Security Council; Author, Blinking Red Light: Crisis and Compromise in American Intelligence after 9/11
--Prof. Angela Stent, Director, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies; Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
--Moderator: Matthew Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute

No poaching allowed! No, you have not wandered into a Hunter’s Safety Forum, but rather an in depth discourse regarding the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division’s recent criminal investigations and prosecutions of “No Poach” conduct. These agreements, which generally establish that Company A will not hire Company B’s employees and in exchange Company B agrees to do the same, have been in the DOJ crosshairs since 2016, but only in the last year have they been specifically referenced in public charging documents. DOJ’s decision to now criminally prosecute “no poach” agreements has resulted in approximately six charged cases from January 2021 to the present. The criminal antitrust defense bar, as well as some academics, have cried foul given that from their perspective the DOJ has created a new form of criminal antitrust conduct out of whole cloth and is prosecuting individuals and corporations who had no intent to violate the law nor had any indication that discussing employment concerns with another company was unlawful. The enforcers have responded just as forcefully and argue that it has always been criminal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act to allocate markets and “no poach” is nothing more than the allocation of the market for employees. Amidst this backdrop, our panel will examine the evolution of “no poach” from the DOJ’s 2016 Guidance for Human Resource Professionals to the cases that are currently pending before judges and at least one jury.

Our panel will include former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Barry Nigro, Co-Chair of the ABA Antitrust Section’s Cartel & Criminal Practice Committee Lindsey Vaala, former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Zach Terwilliger, and Pepper Crutcher, chair of the Labor and Employment practice group at the Federalist Society and partner at Balch & Bingham, who will wrangle our panel and serve as moderator.

Featuring:

--Barry Nigro, Partner, Fried Frank, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
--Lindsey Vaala, Counsel, Vinson & Elkins, and Co-Chair, ABA Antitrust Section's Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee
--Zach Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
--Moderator: Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham and Chairman, Labor & Employment Practice Group at the Federalist Society

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.


United States v. Washington (April 18) – workers’ compensation; state and federal law

Siegel v. Fitzgerald (April 18) – Bankruptcy Judgeship Act; Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

George v. McDonough (April 19) – veterans’ claims and Department of Veterans Affairs agency interpretation

Kemp v. United States (April 19) – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)

Vega v. Tekoh (April 20) – Habeas motions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and relief for Miranda violations

Kennedy v. Bremerton (April 25) – the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment

Nance v. Ward (April 25) – method of execution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 habeas motions

Biden v. Texas (April 26) – remain in Mexico immigration policy

Shoop v. Twyford (April 26) – the All Writs Act and habeas petitions

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (April 27) – Indian Law


Featuring:

--Noel J. Francisco, Partner-in-Charge Washington, Jones Day
--Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
--Aaron M. Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice, Baker Botts LLP
--Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
--Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

In his recent book John Fisher and Thomas More: Keeping Their Souls While Losing Their Heads, Robert Conrad, who serves as a federal district court judge in the Western District of North Carolina, details the lives, trials, and executions of two Catholic saints who opposed King Henry's bid for ecclesiastical approval of his divorce. Thomas More, an attorney and close advisor to the king, underwent a trial filled with grievous errors, the deprivation of due process, and more.
Judge Conrad will join us to discuss his book, these two men, and the enduring relevance of their stories.

Featuring:
--Hon. Robert Conrad, District Judge, Western District of North Carolina
--Moderator: William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology