FedSoc Forums

The False Claims Act, which imposes civil and criminal liability on those who submit false claims for payment to the federal government, serves as a primary tool in the federal government’s enforcement arsenal. At the same time, the global COVID-19 pandemic and the CARES Act have led the federal government to disburse unprecedented amounts of money to the private sector, raising the possibility of future enforcement action.

This teleforum will provide an update on the DOJ’s False Claims Act enforcement priorities to date, and discuss potential trends and activity that could emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and related stimulus spending.

Featuring:
-- John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

In the 2019 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three decisions with major implications for religious organizations, addressing such issues as access to government programs, conscience exemptions in health-care plans, and the ministerial exemption in employment litigation, as well as a per curiam decision arising from a bankruptcy of a pension plan administered by a Catholic diocese in Puerto Rico. Please join the lawyers of Jones Day for a Teleforum call that will discuss these major cases, including concurrences and dissents, along with a case the Court will consider in the fall involving the roles of state and local governments and religious organizations in providing foster care to children. The presentation will also examine what are the next steps in litigation in these areas.

Featuring:
-- Victoria Dorfman, Partner, Jones Day
-- Anthony Dick, Partner, Jones Day
-- David Raimer, Partner, Jones Day

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will soon hear a lawsuit on accelerated consideration brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance that aims to restore constitutional governance to the Commonwealth. The suit seeks to overturn the Civil Defense State of Emergency, which Gov. Charlie Baker declared under the Commonwealth’s Civil Defense Act, which has never before been invoked for a health emergency. Massachusetts does have a Public Health Act expressly designed to empower local authorities to control and prevent transmission of infectious diseases dangerous to public health.

This case presents foundational due process questions. A hearing, which will take place on September 11, will ask the Supreme Judicial Court to declare that the Civil Defense Act does not confer any authority upon the Governor during a pandemic and to declare his orders null and void. This ruling would permit local boards of health to establish strategies befitting their communities.

Featuring:
-- Michael DeGrandis, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides liability protection to platforms, internet service providers, and other online intermediaries for third-party content they host or republish. It also provides liability protections for actions taken “in good faith” by such entities to moderate content. Section 230 has recently come under scrutiny from President Trump, members of Congress, and others who have raised questions about the appropriateness of these protections and their continued viability “in the Age of Twitter.”

In May, President Trump issued an Executive Order that directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposing regulations to clarify the scope of Section 230. The FCC is currently soliciting public comment on the NTIA petition, which was filed on July 27.

During this teleforum, panelists will discuss the background of Section 230. They will reflect on whether Section 230 continues to encourage innovation and free speech online, or whether changes are needed. What should the FCC do to address the pending NTIA petition? And, in light of the upcoming elections, what are the political dynamics at play—at the FCC, in Congress, and in the White House?

Featuring:
-- Hon. Adam Candeub, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
-- Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law
-- Ashkhen Kazaryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedom
-- Jon Adame, General Counsel, Office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn
-- Moderator: Jamie Susskind, Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Technology Association

Join us as Richard Epstein and Michael Toth discuss how digital innovation is changing the way U.S. consumers buy and sell homes. Amid a V shaped recovery in housing, that has led to a surge in mobility and home prices across the U.S., Epstein and Toth will review emerging real estate marketplaces and how these platforms compare with other efforts to disrupt traditional industries through exchanges. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, at New York University, the Peter and Kirstin Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution , and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus and Senior Lecturer, the University of Chicago. Toth is SVP of REX, an Austin-based real estate technology company delivering a full-service online platform for residential real estate buyers and sellers.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
-- Michael Toth, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Special Counsel, REX

Please join us for a teleforum discussing the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in this important case, which reversed the Federal Trade Commission's 2019 trial court win. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Qualcomm did not violate antitrust law through its licensing practices for standard-essential patents.

John Shu, a professor, attorney, and legal commentator, will discuss the ruling and examine the history, arguments, and ramifications of the case.

Featuring:
-- Mr. John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator

On July 16, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) revised its regulations governing qualifying small power producers and cogenerators under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). PURPA was designed to reduce demand for traditional fossil fuels by encouraging the development of these small power producers and cogenerators. Yet, as regulation-mandated PURPA contracts expanded, many utilities (and ultimately, ratepayers) became saddled with expensive power contracts that over-charged for energy and were unnecessary. The new rule provides some added flexibility to state regulators and makes other changes designed to modernize PURPA. Join Anthony T. Clark, Senior Advisor at Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP and a former FERC Commissioner, and Travis Kavulla, Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at NRG Energy and former commissioner at the Montana Public Service Commission, to discuss the new PURPA rule and its potential implications for the energy market.

Featuring:
-- Anthony T. Clark, Senior Advisor at Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP and former FERC Commissioner
-- Travis Kavulla, Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at NRG Energy and former commissioner at the Montana Public Service Commission
-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended Americans’ daily lives. What one day people took for granted, like going to church, was the next day potentially deadly and prohibited by law. In response to the pandemic, state and local officials ordered entities such as non-essential businesses and churches to close. But as churches tried to adapt to uncertain circumstances by offering drive-thru and drive-up services, some were required to stop these activities. As the public-health situation improved, some officials required churches to remain closed, even as they allowed business establishments to open. These situations involving churches and their freedom to operate prompted lawsuits and drew the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Outside of church, too, religious citizens have faced unique challenges. For example, Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian humanitarian organization, was asked to remove the field hospital it set up in New York City because of its leader’s views on same-sex marriage and other social issues. And now, as California public schools announce they will not be re-opening for in-person classes in the fall, religious schools in the state are being told they may not open either, even though many of these schools are much smaller than public schools.

These circumstances have raised a host of legal and constitutional questions regarding how religion is treated and how it should be treated. What are the limits of religious liberty during a public-health emergency, and what powers do government officials have to regulate religious exercise? In what cases, if any, can government prefer religion and when, if ever, is it required to discriminate against religion? Law professors Rick Garnett and Bill Marshall join us to discuss the legal and constitutional issues involved in these evolving matters and more.

Featuring:
-- Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl / Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
-- William Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law

Corpus linguistics has recently emerged as a method for addressing problems in legal interpretation. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural language, that can be designed to sample the linguistic conventions of a wide variety of speech communities, industries, or linguistic contexts. And corpora (plural of corpus) have begun to see increasing use by judges, scholars, and advocates, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. This Teleforum will first provide an overview for those unfamiliar with corpus linguistics, and then address advantages and limitations of using language evidence from linguistic corpora in legal interpretation, such as when interpreting contracts, statutes, or constitutions, as well as highlight the use of corpus linguistics in recent cases.

Featuring:
-- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless
-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”) to reform elections. Among other things, NVRA specifically provides the right to the public to inspect and copy state voting records. Section 8 of the NVRA requires election officials to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of – (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant[.]” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4). Section 8 also requires that election officials shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters. Section 8 also mandates that any such list maintenance programs or activities “shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.).” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(b)(1).

Are the various requirements of the National Voter Registration Act being followed? Does the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased calls for vote by mail, provide an opening to transform the way America conducts elections? Does the presence of ineligible registrants on voter rolls open the door for improperly cast votes?


Featuring:
-- Linda A. Kerns, Attorney, Law Offices of Linda A. Kerns, LLC
-- J. Christian Adams, General Counsel, Election Law Center, Public Interest Legal Foundation
-- Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, Vote at Home, and Author of When Women Vote
-- Charles Stewart III, Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology