FedSoc Forums

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. Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed. United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent. Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver. Featuring: Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye Institute Jeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s Office Mary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation Jordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center (Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Ilan Wurman, a constitutional historian and law professor, explores common-law roots tying birthright to parental protection. Keith Whittington, a Yale constitutional scholar, examines originalist limits on who is subject to jurisdiction. They debate jurisdiction, parental protection, enforcement discretion, congressional power, and policy responses to birth tourism in a lively legal conversation.

In the first medical malpractice verdict of its kind, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who sued the clinicians responsible for performing a double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The case marks a historic legal development and signals the emergence of a new frontier in medical malpractice litigation. At its core are difficult and consequential questions about standards of care, informed consent, particularly for minors undergoing irreversible medical interventions, and the extent to which existing malpractice frameworks are equipped to address these medical practices. This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems. Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation? Featuring: Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending Freedom Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty (Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education (Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire

Daniel R. Thies, council chair and accreditation insider. Daniel B. Rodriguez, former law dean and legal-education scholar. Derek T. Muller, law professor and commentator on accreditation. They debate the ABA's gatekeeping role, state-level pushback like Texas and Florida, questions about standards vs outcomes, and possible alternatives and innovations for legal education.

G. Roger King, senior labor counsel versed in collective bargaining; F. Vincent Vernuccio, pro-worker policy advocate and former DOL transition member; Thomas Beck, employer-side labor advisor with healthcare experience. They debate major Senate and House reform proposals. They discuss whether the NLRA needs overhaul, ideas like an Article I labor court, interest arbitration, and which fixes might actually pass in Congress.

Prof. Zvi Rosen, an IP law scholar who studies copyright history and fair use. Prof. Emily Brummer, an administrative law expert on private standard-setting and transparency. They debate publishing privately developed technical standards incorporated into law. Short takes cover fair use doctrine, commercial incentives, read-only access solutions, and how transparency and regulatory practice collide.

CLE credit for this event will be available at On-Demand CLE. Anticipated availability date: March 15th.This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and the Department of the Navy. Drawing on their experience, practice, and diverse career paths, the panel will explore the practice of law within the Department of War and the individual services; the opportunities, challenges, and rewards of this dynamic field of law and policy; the skills and competencies critical to success both within government service and beyond; and how this unique area of practice broadens Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) as attorneys and equips them for successful transitions to civilian practice.This program serves as the inaugural webinar of the Armed Services Legal Network. To learn more about this new initiative of the Federalist Society, click here. If you are currently a JAG or a veteran practicing law and are interested in participating in the Network, please contact us at Networks@fedsoc.org.CLE InfoFeaturing:Hon. James Baehr, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Reserve; Former Military JudgeHon. Paul C. Ney, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense and currently Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLPHon. Robert J. Sander, Former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, Former Acting General Counsel of the Army, and currently Founding Partner, The Sander Group, PLLC(Moderator) Toby Curto, Colonel, U.S. Army

The Federal Judicial Center describes itself as “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government.” Yet it has recently come under scrutiny for its release of a new Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which critics argue departs from the judiciary’s traditional role as a neutral arbiter. In particular, the Manual’s inclusion of a “climate science” section which advances an ideological narrative rather than provide neutral guidance.Is the Center’s Report putting a thumb on the scale by taking sides on contested climate science questions and, through official manuals and guidance materials, attempting to shape how judges are instructed to evaluate disputed questions before cases are even heard? And is the Report compatible with the judge’s duty to say what the law is, not what it should be? Featuring: Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLCC; former Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell Carrie Campbell Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

Todd Zywicki, law professor who analyzes consumer data and policy, and Paul Watkins, regulatory lawyer with CFPB experience, discuss who controls financial data. They explore Section 1033, data access methods like APIs versus screen scraping, fees and bank leverage, definitions of authorized third parties, and whether regulation or market negotiation will protect consumer choice.