FedSoc Forums

Few fields are more in need of fresh thinking than administrative law. The author of Administrative Law Theory and Fundamentals: An Integrated Approach, a new casebook recently published by Foundation Press, seeks to provide such thinking. The new casebook proposes a theory of administrative power that better explains constitutional text and structure, as well as historical and modern practice, than competing accounts. It argues that there are “exclusive” powers that only Congress, the President, and the courts can respectively exercise, but also “nonexclusive” powers that can be exercised by more than one branch. This theory of “nonexclusive powers” allows students and scholars of administrative law to make more sense of—or better critiques of—administrative concepts such as delegation, quasi-powers, judicial deference, agency adjudications, the chameleon-like quality of government power, and of the separation of powers more broadly. Please join Professor Ilan Wurman, the casebook’s author, and Professor Richard Epstein, for a discussion of this new casebook and its theory of administrative power.Featuring:-- Ilan Wurman, Author, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University-- Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law

First proposed in 1923 – yes, nearly one hundred years ago - the Equal Rights Amendment was finally passed by the U.S. Congress nearly 50 years later, in 1972, with a seven-year deadline for its ratification. With the deadline approaching, but the requisite 38 states not having voted to ratify, Congress approved, and President Carter signed, a three-year extension, to 1982.Several states and the U.S. Congress are now revisiting the ERA, raising a variety of issues:Whether it is constitutionally possible at this point to extend or eliminate the deadline for ratification of the 1972 ERA; the effectiveness (or not) of five states’ revocations of their votes to ratify; the effectiveness (or not) of the three states’ ratifications that came more than 35 years after the extended deadline;The pros and cons and wisdom (or not) and necessity (or not) and ramifications of amending the United States Constitution with the ERA.These and related matters will be discussed by Rep. Steven Andersson, founder of GOP4ERA.org, and Jennifer Braceras, Director of the Independent Women’s Law Center. Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor will moderate the discussion.Featuring:Rep. Steven Andersson, Founder, GOP4ERA.orgJennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law CenterModerator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, 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.

In a decision issued on March 26, 2021, the Sixth Circuit held Professor Nicholas Meriwether, a long-time philosophy professor at Shawnee State and a devout Christian, had plausibly alleged Shawnee State violated his First Amendment Speech and Free Exercise rights by subjecting him to discipline over use of pronouns. On the Speech claim: the Sixth Circuit found the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Cebalos did not apply to bar Meriwether’s claim since the Court had expressly withheld applying the precedent to “a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.” On the Free Exercise claim: based on the hostility to religion demonstrated by Shawnee State officials, the Sixth Circuit found strict scrutiny under Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah rather than rational basis under Employment Division v. Smith applied, so Meriwether had successfully established a Free Exercise claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Joining us to discuss the implications of the decision for academic freedom, free speech and religious liberty is Mr. Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity. Featuring:-- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

The For the People Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019 as H.R. 1, the symbolic designation marking it as the top priority of the new Democratic House majority. Described by its author, Representative John Sarbanes, as addressing “voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government,” the 570 page bill passed the House later that year, but was never voted on in the Republican-controlled Senate. The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.The House passed the bill on a near party-line vote (1 Democrat voted "no"), and its fate now lies with the 50-50 divided Senate. Senate Republicans can block a vote with the filibuster, and H.R. 1 has been cited frequently as a reason to abolish the filibuster. But at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has stated that he will not vote for the bill in its current form, depriving the legislation--for now--of even a simple majority.Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech and one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law will join us to discuss some of the more important provisions and implications of H.R.1/S. 1, the For the People Act.Featuring: -- Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, petitioning Asian-American students argued that Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies actively discriminated against them on the basis of race in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed, triggering SFFA’s pending petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari. If the Court accepts cert, the case will present it with the chance to address the legality of race-based admissions policies for the fifth time in as many decades. Should and will the Court take the case? Is this an opportunity for a long-overdue correction of judicial error or a project doomed to fail? And what exactly does the trove of information from the record below mean for the Court’s decision, for admissions departments elsewhere, and for applicants? Featuring: Anna Ivey, Founder, Anna Ivey Consulting Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm Moderator: Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In March 2021, the Biden Administration unveiled its infrastructure plan, known as the American Jobs Act. An important part of the plan is technology, and a focus point is improving the nation's broadband network. A panel of experts joins us to discuss the plan and its implications.Featuring: Prof. Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolTony Clark, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLPKate O’Connor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and CommerceModerator: Hon. David Redl, Founder and CEO, Salt Point Strategies LLC and Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons* * * * * 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 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Services, a case involving the Anti-Injunction Act and tax penalties. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for the Court and Justices Sotomayor and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions.Joining us to discuss the decision and its implications are several experts in the field. Featuring: Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence, University of Texas at Austin School of LawKristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In March 2021, a futures exchange, ErisX, voluntarily withdrew an application with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC," the main derivatives regulator) to list a futures contract tied to events in NFL games such as point spread and total points. It had become clear that the CFTC was going to reject it as a "prohibited event contract." The issue likely would have faded away except that one of the CFTC's five commissioners, Brian Quintenz, released a statement "blowing the whistle" on the non-public agency process and questioning the CFTC's authority. Join Commissioner Quintenz for a discussion. Featuring:-- Hon. Brian D. Quintenz, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission-- Moderator: Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Due to technical difficulties, this teleforum has been rescheduled for Friday, May 21 at 1:30 PM ET.On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Edwards v. Vannoy, which focused on whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applied retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this decision and its implications. Featuring: Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Nearly two dozen lawsuits against energy manufacturers seeking state tort damages over climate change have been filed in state courts. The defendants removed the cases to federal courts because the subject matter of the litigation involves exclusively federal issues, namely national energy policy over the worldwide uses of fossil fuels.On May 17, 2021, The Supreme Court released its decision in one of the cases, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. By a vote of 7-1, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Sotomayor, who dissented, and Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Phil Goldberg and Karen Harned join us to discuss this decision and its implications. Featuring: -- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center