FedSoc Forums

The regulatory environment in the United States is often complex. State and federal laws sometimes contradict each other. The transition of the American Presidency from one political party to another can lead to rapid and dramatic changes in the regulatory landscape. Even transfers of power between administrations of the same party or shifting priorities of one administration can cause significant changes in regulation. This phenomenon of swift changes in regulatory policy is sometimes referred to as regulatory whiplash. In this recorded webinar, an expert panel discussed regulation and regulatory whiplash in the context of civil rights.Featuring:--Will Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation--Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University--[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

On July 4, 2023, a preliminary injunction was issued in Missouri v. Biden (Western District of Louisiana, 3:22-CV-01213). At issue is the constitutionality of alleged collusion between various federal government agencies and social media companies. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants – including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Secretary Xavier Becerra, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and numerous other key federal officials – violated the First Amendment by attempting to suppress protected speech. Defendants have described the speech in question as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.Some observers are calling the case a major battleground for the future of internet speech. In this recorded webinar Harmeet K. Dhillon and Casey Mattox delivered an update on recent events. Featuring:--Harmeet K. Dhillon, CEO, Center for American Liberty & Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.--[Moderator] Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

In his newly released book We May Dominate the World: Ambition, Anxiety, and the Rise of the American Colossus, Sean A. Mirski tells the story of how the United States asserted its growing power in the Western hemisphere in the century following the Civil War. Sean Mirski joined us to discuss this chapter of America's history and to share the lessons that we can draw from it as China and other states seek hegemony within their own regions today. Featuring:--Sean A. Mirski, Senior Associate, Arnold & Porter--Moderator: Daniel G. West, Director, SCF Partners

As wireless devices become critical to our daily lives, the process of allocating and managing electromagnetic spectrum rights has become more important but also more contested. Breakdowns in the federal spectrum coordination process and the inability to free up enough spectrum for commercial use threaten American leadership in wireless technology and limit the benefits Americans can get from their wireless devices.Two former National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) administrators joined us for a discussion of how the NTIA makes spectrum policy and what reforms are needed to ensure effective federal policy that advances both federal and commercial interests.Featuring:--Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; Former Administrator, NTIA--Hon. David Redl, Founder and President, Salt Point Strategies; Former Administrator, NTIA--Moderator: Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP--Moderator: Joe Kane, Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

On Friday, June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Biden v. Nebraska. The case arose after President Biden enacted a plan to cancel between $10,000 and $20,000 in student loans for qualified borrowers through executive action. The Biden Administration argued that the Secretary of Education was granted the authority to forgive student loans in the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education the authority to establish a student loan forgiveness program discharging approximately $430 billion in student loans and affecting nearly all borrowers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court’s opinion; Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion focused primarily on the Major Questions Doctrine; Justice Kagan filed the dissenting opinion.In this recorded webinar, Jesse Panuccio discussed the decision.Featuring:--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

On Thursday, June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the United States owes no “affirmative duty” to the Navajo Nation to secure water, reversing a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The majority held that the 1868 Treaty of Bosque Redondo did not establish a federal obligation to provide water. The decision hinged on the way the court framed the Nation's claims. Accepting the federal government's argument, the majority viewed Indian treaties as establishing rights to various resources, including land, timber, minerals, and water. Each property right was seen as a "stick in the bundle of property rights that make up a reservation." Consequently, the burden was placed on the Navajo Nation to demonstrate that the treaty explicitly obligated the United States to go beyond recognizing tribal water rights. Drawing on precedents like United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Court held that the United States only owes obligations to Indian tribes as explicitly stated in treaties, statutes, or regulations. In other words, once the federal government recognizes tribal property rights through a treaty, its obligations are limited unless further enactments exist.AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle joined us to break down the Court’s findings. Featuring:--Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder & Co-Chair, American Indian Law Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig LLP--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP

On June 30, 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decided 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Petitioner Lorie Smith, an artist in Colorado and owner/founder of the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC. challenged Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) on the grounds it is unconstitutional, arguing, among other things, it violates her right to free speech.The Court ruled “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, a panel of experts broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision. Featuring: --Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity--Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law--[Moderator] Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

In Counterman v. Colorado, the Court considered a question of free speech and criminal law: whether, in order for a statement to be categorized as a "true threat" and thus not protected under a right to free speech, the speaker must subjectively know or intend the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence. On June 27, 2023 the Court held that “The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature, but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than recklessness.”In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision. Featuring:--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

On June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in Samia v. United States. The main question at issue in the case was whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held “the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction.”In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, we will broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision. Featuring:--Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On June 29, 2023 SCOTUS issued an opinion concerning Title VII, religious liberties, and employment law. In deciding Groff v. DeJoy, the Court held “ Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”The case involved Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, who formerly worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. His refusal to violate his beliefs to work Sunday shifts led to disciplinary action and his eventual resignation. Groff sued and the following litigation raised two questions that the Court considered. Both concerned the protections provided to employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. One was whether the Court should overrule the “more-than-de-minimis-cost” test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. The other concerned whether burdens on employees are sufficient to constitute “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” for the employer under Title VII.In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where we broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision. Featuring:--Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute--Bruce Cameron, Senior Atorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation