FedSoc Forums

On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA. This case is a property-rights challenge by a California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home. The court will determine whether a monetary exaction imposed by a local government as a condition for a building permit is exempt from the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements established in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard, simply because the exaction is authorized by local legislation. Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: David P. Lanferman, Partner, Rutan & Tucker LLP Nancie G. Marzulla, Partner, Marzullla Law

After Carson v. Makin (2023) --a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that Maine may not prohibit families from using state-provided voucher funds at private religious schools-- St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School (St. Isidore) applied to become the first faith-based virtual charter school in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s application. On July 31, 2023, the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Committee, represented by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church & State, and other organizations, filed a lawsuit against State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, the Oklahoma State Department of Education, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, and St. Isidore. The lawsuit alleges that it is a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma law to grant charter school status and distribute state aid to a faith-based school. Subsequently, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, filed a separate lawsuit requesting original jurisdiction in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, taking the side of the ACLU and its allies, and seeking to ban St. Isidore from operating a faith-based virtual charter school. Currently, Oklahoma families may choose to send their children, for free, to local public schools, local charter schools run by private organizations, or virtual charter schools run by private organizations. Those seeking to block St. Isidore’s operation take the position that, while Oklahoma may allow secular private organizations to operate charter schools, it must deny the same opportunity to all faith-based organizations. The Defendants in the suits argue that Carson v. Makin and other recent precedents applying the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as different Oklahoma state laws, prohibit the state from discriminating against St. Isidore because of its faith-based status and denying families of Oklahoma a faith-based choice among the many secular choices for free education in Oklahoma. Join us for a litigation update on OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board. Featuring: Michael McGinley, Partner, Dechert LLP (Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

On January 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Devillier v. Texas. This takings case will determine whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action. The petitioners in this case sued the state after the Texas Department of Transportation elevated an interstate and constructed a barrier to obstruct natural water flow, subsequently flooding and damaging the petitioners’ properties. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, joined us to discuss the case and its developments following oral argument. For more analysis from Professor Somin, you can read his blog post on the arguments here and find his amicus brief on behalf of the CATO Institute here. Featuring: Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

As we entered the new year, John Malcolm and John Yoo examined the latest regarding presidential power. In recent weeks, both Colorado and Maine have removed former President Donald Trump from their primary ballots under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In D.C., House Republicans are are preparing contempt charges against Hunter Biden for defying a congressional subpoena. Tune in to hear the latest.

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. Experts on both sides argue it has implications on the role of judges, judicial independence, separation of powers, stare decisis, governmental accountability, and the rule of law. In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will be asked whether that precedent should be overturned. Join us as a panel of experts give a preview of these two important cases in a discussion of what the Chevron doctrine has done, how these cases may affect it and the body of precedent surrounding it, and what they may mean moving forward. Featuring: Prof. John Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; CEO, New Civil Liberties Alliance Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School (Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

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. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.” Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear. U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court’s 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be? Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home. Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement. Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue. Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Featuring: Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & Barger Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East Timor Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE. In this CLE webinar, Judge Jennifer Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Andy Halaby discussed the following areas of legal ethics and professional responsibility: Using artificial intelligence for preparation of legal documents: some ethical implications and the development of guidelines and best practices. Insights into when unprofessional conduct becomes unethical conduct and how supervisory attorneys (and others) can help younger lawyers avoid some common ethical pitfalls. Ethical and other issues facing compliance lawyers under Arizona’s Alternative Business Structure (ABS) law and some takeaways from Arizona’s experience three years into this experiment. Brief overview of the ABA’s amendment to Model Rule 1.16. Featuring: Hon. Margaret H. Downie, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme Court Andrew F. Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One CLE Cost: $25/Member $50/Non-Member CLE Info To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page.

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a Colorado faith-based healthcare provider is challenging a recent Colorado law banning a treatment commonly known as abortion pill reversal on the grounds it forced them to violate their religious beliefs. The law, passed in April 2023, makes it illegal for healthcare professionals to offer progesterone (a naturally occurring hormone crucial to a healthy pregnancy) to women who have taken mifepristone as part one in a two-step abortion pill regimen but who subsequently want to maintain their pregnancy. The law imposes significant fines and jeopardizes the medical licenses of those who provide or advertise using progesterone to reverse the effects of an abortion pill. Bella Health, founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, which has traditionally offered this route of care for women as a part of its life-affirming OB-GYN practice, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. A limited injunction was issued in late April, pending reports by the state's Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. The last of those regulations were issued in September. The next day, Bella again asked the Court for injunctive relief. In an order issued on October 21, 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined Colorado from enforcing the law, and the case remains live. Join us for a litigation update on this case and what its implications may be, featuring Prof. Mark Rienzi who is President of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing Bella Health in this case. Featuring: Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School (Moderator) Ms. Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

With campaign season in full swing, a high-stakes legal and policy battle is intensifying over whether those in prison, on probation and parole, or simply with a past felony record should be eligible to vote. In January 2024, a rare Fifth Circuit en banc hearing will consider Mississippi’s felony disenfranchisement law that was struck down by a divided three-judge panel. Plaintiffs in such cases claim violations of equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment, raising the questions of how the original meaning of such provisions should apply today and whether this is a political question that should be left by judges to the elected branches of government to determine. Also, in Texas and Florida, prosecutions against those who voted despite a disqualifying criminal record implicate the question of mens rea. Join us as we consider varied perspectives on this issue that brings to the fore conflicting conceptions of the purpose of punishment, the impact of our nation’s history on the present, and the very meaning of citizenship and democracy. Featuring: Jeff Jacoby, Columnist, Boston Globe Nicole Porter, Senior Director of Advocacy, The Sentencing Project (Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice

John Malcolm and John Yoo continued their discussion of presidential power as they examined the latest updates on former President Donald Trump's civil and criminal cases, presidential immunities, and the expected House impeachment vote.