FedSoc Forums

This session will cover changes – both observed to-date and anticipated – by OFCCP in the Biden administration. We will discuss the early initiatives the Biden administration has introduced, including a webpage for the Affirmative Action Verification Initiative that may substantially increase compliance obligations. Other topics will include OFCCP’s anticipated policy interests, areas of significant legal risk including compensation analysis, recent trends and expectations for audits, and the intersectionality of diversity equity and inclusion with OFCCP compliance.Featuring:-- Lauren B. Hicks, Of Counsel, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Charles Borden had been convicted three times of aggravated assault under Tennessee law. Federal law prohibits possession of firearms by convicted felons, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for those with three prior convictions of violent felonies. Two of Borden's convictions were under a subsection of Tennessee's aggravated assault law covering intentional or knowing violations, and one was under a subsection covering reckless violations. Borden was sentenced to the mandatory minimum over his objection that reckless aggravated assault is not a "violent felony" within the meaning of the ACCA.The federal courts of appeals were divided on the question of whether crimes with a reckless mens rea were included within the particular clause of the ACCA invoked in this case. That clause includes convictions of a crime which "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another."The Supreme Court reversed in a fractured decision, unable to reach majority agreement on a single rationale. The result is that any crime which has a definition permitting conviction on the basis of mental state of recklessness will not count for the ACCA.Featuring: Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation ---Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

This panel addressed the textual questions of §230: is the statute correctly understood to permit discretionary content moderation on the part of social media platforms and other supporting tech entities, or does the text provide for a more limited range of moderation policies? Although several circuit courts have adopted a more expansive interpretation of the statutory protections, Justice Thomas has recently questioned whether the prevailing application is consistent with the text. Does viewpoint discrimination fall within the scope of §230 protection? Are decisions to ban individuals from participating on a platform covered by the statutory protections? To what extent does the statute preclude state regulatory initiatives to protect speech by platform users?Featuring: Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; President, New Civil Liberties AllianceEugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawMary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of LawModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On June 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group sponsored a teleforum to discuss "Closing the Digital Divide: The Future of Broadband Access."The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed attention to closing the country’s digital divide. In response, Congress and the White House have made broadband infrastructure a top priority, with several different infrastructure proposals on the table. This massive investment to connect all Americans will require significant funding. This event, featuring FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, will explore the different options available, potential roadblocks, and the continued importance of unleashing private sector investment in today’s broadband networks. Featuring:-- Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission-- Moderator: Randolph J. May, President, Free State Foundation

Section 230 has been understood to shield internet platforms from liability for content posted by users, and also to protect the platforms’ discretion in removing “objectionable” content. But policy makers have recently taken a stronger interest in attempting to influence tech companies’ moderation policies. Some have argued the policies are too restrictive and unduly limit the scope of legitimate public debate in what has become something of a high-tech public square. Other policy makers have argued the platforms need to more aggressively target “hate speech,” online harassment, and other forms of objectionable content. And against that background, states are adopting and considering legislation to limit the scope of permissible content moderation to preclude viewpoint discrimination. Some have suggested that the §230 protection, in combination with political pressure, create First Amendment state action problems for content moderation. Others argue that state efforts to protect the expressive interests of social media users would raise First Amendment concerns, by effectively compelling speech by social media and tech platforms.What are the First Amendment limits on federal and state efforts to influence platform decisions on excluding or moderating content? Featuring:Eugene T. Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawJed Rubenfeld, formerly Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Representative at the Council of Europe, and professor at the Yale Law SchoolMary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of LawModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On May 27, 2021, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Vitolo v. Guzman. Over a dissent written by Judge Donald, the Court held that the Small Business Act of the American Rescue Plan Act created unconstitutional racial, ethnic, and gender-based priority preferences in distributing covid-relief grants to small businesses. Upon finding the plaintiffs would win on their constitutional claim, the Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction pending appeal.Joining us to discuss is Mr. Daniel Lennington, the attorney who represented Mr. Vitolo before the Sixth Circuit.Featuring: -- Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

On June 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. United States. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that an individual exceeds authorized access when he accesses a computer with authorization but obtains information in a place on the computer off-limits to him. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined.Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District Joseph DeMarco joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.Featuring:Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeMarco Law PLLC* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

This teleforum will examine the president's use of travel bans during the SARS-2 pandemic Two of the nation's top experts in immigration law--Professor Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and Chris Hajec of the Immigration Reform Law Institute--will present their views of the law and policy in this area while also taking questions from the audience.Featuring:-- Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute-- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Breyer that could have far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Cooley that a tribal police officer does have authority to temporarily detain a non-Indian where the officer has probable cause of a violation of state or federal law. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Joining us to discuss are Indian Law experts AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle. Featuring: Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig ---To register, click the link above.

On May 27, the Supreme Court issued its 9-0 decision in San Antonio, TX v. Hotels.com holding that district courts lack the discretion to deny or reduce Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 appellate costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.Joining us to discuss is Associate Professor of Law and Interim Dean Charles Campbell of Faulkner University Jones School of Law. Featuring:-- Charles Campbell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law