FedSoc Forums

On April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which presents the question whether, under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., public high schools may discipline students for off-campus speech. B.L. was a high-school sophomore who had tried out unsuccessfully for the varsity cheerleading team, but was selected for the J.V. team instead. Upset, she Snapchatted a photo of herself raising her middle fingers and captioned the photo "F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything." The school determined that her Snapchat violated school rules, and removed her from the J.V. team. Her parents sued on her behalf, claiming that the removal violated her First Amendment rights. Both the District Court and the Third Circuit ruled in B.L.'s favor.Joining us to discuss is Professor Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School. Featuring: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University 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.

On April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago. Defendant Palomar-Santiago lost his permanent resident status in 1991 after a California felony DUI conviction. He was deported and subsequently reentered the country without authorization. In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit held that felony DUI was not a crime of violence necessitating the deportation of a permanent resident-defendant. Now Palomar-Santiago challenges his current 8 U.S.C. 1326 illegal reentry indictment using Ninth Circuit precedent that his initial removal was fundamentally unfair since the crime underlying his deportation was improperly categorized.The District Court agreed with Palomar-Santiago and the Ninth Circuit affirmed without addressing the merits of the government’s argument: that the Ninth Circuit's decision redefining felony DUI was wrongly decided.The Supreme Court will address the question whether a defendant who was removed from the United States is automatically entitled to a defense of invalid removal where the crime underlying his removal is no longer a qualifying removal offense within his circuit.Featuring:Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland 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.

On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra. The Court will address what level of scrutiny is necessary for a government to require the disclosure of donor lists, a disclosure which Petitioners and others argue chills the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment and is at odds with the holding in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson.Joining us to discuss is Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP and the author of an amicus brief in the consolidated cases.Featuring: -- Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

On April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association.In this litigation, three refineries are challenging the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, which limits the availability of an EPA hardship exemption under the Renewable Fuel Standard of the Clean Air Act to those small refineries that can show “disproportionate economic hardship” and who have applied for an exemption for all preceding years. While the Tenth Circuit relies on the textual structure of the RFS, the refineries argue the Court’s interpretation belies the purpose of the exemption which Congress stated should be available for application “at any time.”The Supreme Court takes up a question of statutory interpretation deciding whether a small refinery must not only show “disproportionate economic hardship,” but also receive continuous uninterrupted hardship exemptions to qualify for an additional RFS hardship exemption. Featuring: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC 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.

On April 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities, & Antitrust Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "The Antitrust Paradox: A Conversation with Sen. Mike Lee and Robert Bork, Jr." Judge Robert H. Bork's famous work, The Antitrust Paradox, has been republished so that the new generation of general practitioners and antitrust thinkers alike can bring his work to bear on their own. Senator Mike Lee, who wrote the republished edition's foreword, and Robert Bork, Jr., discussed the book, the present state of antitrust issues, and more.Featuring:Robert H. Bork, Jr., President, The Bork Foundation; President, Antitrust Education ProjectSen. Mike Lee, United States Senate, UtahModerator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * 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 April 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "Revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan." The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan came under scrutiny in a recent dissent by Judge Silberman of the DC Court of Appeals. Noted First Amendment scholars Glenn Reynolds and Floyd Adams weighed in on the discussion addressing whether or not the nearly sixty-year-old case should be revisited, and the impact of First Amendment driven defamation laws in the journalistic context and free public discourse. Featuring: Prof. Glenn Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of LawFloyd Abrams, Senior Counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLPModerator: Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP* * * * * 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 mid-March 2021, the state of Ohio's attorney general filed suit against Janet Yellen and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, challenging a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act that involves federal and state tax policies. Benjamin Flowers, Ohio's solicitor general, joins us to give a litigation update, review the background of the case, and more. Featuring: -- Benjamin Flowers, Solicitor General, Ohio-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The case involves the issue of whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.Supreme Court practice expert Daniel Ortiz joins us to discuss the case and review the oral arguments. Featuring: Prof. Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law

On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court decided AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Breyer explained how Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not authorize the FTC to seek, or a court to award, monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. A panel of experts will discuss the ruling and its implications.Featuring: -- Alden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; former General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission-- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom-- Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts; former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission-- Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom

One year ago, the United States Department of Justice announced a series of indictments against major figures of the Venezuelan regime lead by Nicolas Maduro, including of Mr. Maduro himself. One significant case involves a Colombian businessman, Alex Saab, who has been described in the press as “Maduro’s financier.” Just two weeks ago, a court in Cape Verde, West Africa, ordered Mr. Saab to be extradited to the United States, just as another regional court ordered that he be freed. He has resisted extradition based on an appointment by the Venezuelan government as a “diplomat” on a “humanitarian mission” to Iran.This Teleforum will give listeners an update on where these cases stand as well as background on the nuances of prosecuting them. The speakers include Ryan Berg, a regional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael Nadler, a partner with the firm SFS Law in Miami, Florida, and former Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and who served as lead counsel in the cases against Mr. Saab as well as other Maduro-regime figures.Featuring: -- Ryan Berg, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute -- Michael B. Nadler, Partner, SFS Law -- Moderator: Harout Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper