FedSoc Forums

On January 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, an important case involving issues of media ownership. Specifically, the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the Federal Communications Commission orders under review, which relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.A distinguished panel joined The Federalist Society on January 25, 2021 to discuss the case, the arguments, and the implications. Featuring: Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law; former General Counsel, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute; former Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionMr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; former General Counsel, Federal Communications CommissionModerator: Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group***As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on matters of legal and public policy. Expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

After living in relative obscurity since its passage in 1996, the Congressional Review Act caught the nation’s attention in 2017 when a Republican-led Congress and newly-elected President Trump used it to overturn 14 “midnight” regulations issued at the end of the Obama administration. Some prominent Democratic lawmakers opposed the CRA’s framework as well as its individual uses in 2017. Will roles be reversed in 2021 regarding Trump administration "midnight" regulations? Can they be completely reversed? The teleforum will review the mechanics and overriding purposes of the CRA. The technical elements include the law’s expedited congressional procedures, the types of actions covered, time frames for disapprovals, number of votes needed to overturn an action, and the consequences of disapproval. Featuring:Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington 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.

While China is the paramount strategic priority for the United States, the Middle East remains a region of significance for U.S. national security interests. The Trump administration prioritized pressure on Iran, efforts to reduce the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Syria, and good relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia. The incoming Biden administration is expected to continue some aspects of the Trump approach while changing course in others. Our two experts will assess the Trump record in the region and what they expect from the Biden administration. Please join us for this timely discussion.Featuring:-- Matthew R. A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute-- Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Following a year of disruptions not seen in generations: a global pandemic, economic crisis, social unrest, and a divisive political season, Americans are looking for a better way. In his new book, Believe in People: Bottom-Up Solutions for a Top-Down World, co-authored with Charles Koch, Stand Together Chairman & CEO Brian Hooks makes the case that this starts in the places and with people you may least expect. Today’s challenges call for nothing short of a paradigm shift – away from a top-down approach that sees people as problems to be managed, toward bottom-up solutions that empower everyone to realize their potential and foster a more inclusive society. Drawing on the experience of thousands of social entrepreneurs in education, business, communities, and public policy, the book shares lessons for those looking to make a greater difference and put our country on a better track.Featuring:-- Brian Hooks, Chairman and CEO, Stand Together-- Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of the Practice Groups, Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy

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. The Supreme Court is considering the scope of appellate review of the remand order in one of the cases, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The implications of this ruling will likely extend to the larger climate litigation campaign. The oral argument is scheduled for January 19, 2021. Phil Goldberg, who authored an amicus brief filed by several trade groups including the National Association of Manufacturers, will provide his thoughts on the hearing and the broader implications for climate litigation. 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

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) is a federal statute permitting the President to appoint acting officials to fill vacancies that arise within federal departments and agencies when certain conditions are met. Last amended in 1998, the law represents a compromise of sorts between the Legislative and Executive branches, which share power regarding the appointment and confirmation of many federal officers. The FVRA’s use in recent years to fill vacancies within the Departments of Justice and Veterans Affairs and agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among others, has been controversial. What are the limits of the FVRA? Is the FVRA constitutional as applied to the appointment of acting principal officers? Does it apply when an organic agency statute also provides for a more specific succession plan? Does it apply to vacancies created by firing rather than temporary absence, death or resignation? Who has standing to challenge an FVRA appointment or the actions of an FVRA appointee? How should the incoming Administration think about the use of FVRA? Featuring: Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute Stephen Migala, Attorney-Adviser, U.S. Department of State Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird 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.

Over the past month, the Environmental Protection Agency has finalized two new transparency-related rules. The stated purpose of the rule “Increasing Consistency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process” is “to codify procedural best practices for the preparation, development, presentation, and consideration of BCA in regulatory decision-making under the CAA.” The rule “Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information” is intended to help shed light on the science used and disseminated by the agency. Both of these rules have garnered both praise and criticism. There is also a significant amount of confusion over what these rules would actually do. Join us as we discuss these new rules. Featuring: -- Rachel Jones, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)-- Clint Woods, Policy Fellow for Regulations, Americans for Prosperity-- Moderator: Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

In May 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced formation of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, tasked with reexamining human rights in U.S. foreign policy. The very concept of “unalienable rights” proved immediately controversial with “traditional” human rights organizations, and four of them sued the State Department in federal court, claiming the Commission was unbalanced in its view on human rights. The Commission completed its work in August with a report outlining how “unalienable rights” – the rights inherent in all persons – inform the Declaration, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and how unalienable rights should inform U.S. foreign policy.Human Rights organizations continue to write that they are alarmed by the Commission, arguing that it is the basis of a “pick-and-choose” version of human rights. Mary Ann Glendon, the Commission’s chair, recently stated, in a curated discussion with Secretary Pompeo, that human rights should be independent of sovereign decision making: “[I]f there are no rights that exist independently of the sovereign, then we are in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak and the vulnerable suffer the consequences.” Are the Commission’s concerns different from the concerns that have been traditionally expressed in international human rights law, and, if so, what does the future hold for the Commission’s report? Featuring:-- Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. Department of State

In 2018, the City of Baltimore filed climate change litigation in state court against multiple energy companies seeking damages from the impact of climate change. The energy companies moved the lawsuit to federal court, arguing it was the proper venue; however, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland disagreed and ruled the case belonged in state court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia affirmed the lower court’s decision and the energy companies appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Last October, the justices granted their petition for writ of certiori requesting review of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling remanding the case to state court. Oral arguments are set for Tuesday, January 19th.Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher joins us to preview this pivotal hearing, the implications for similar litigation around the country and his role in leading a 15-state coalition that is taking a stand against climate change litigation.Featuring:Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana Solicitor GeneralModerator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

On January 13, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, a case that could define the scope of the FTC's remedial authority and explore the limits of textualism. The FTC Act authorizes the Commission to seek a "permanent injunction" in federal court to stop “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” For many years, the FTC and most courts have interpreted "permanent injunction" to give the FTC the power to require defendants to return money to victims. The Seventh Circuit recently disagreed and held that the term "permanent injunction" does not encompass equitable monetary relief for past misconduct. To cover the oral arguments, Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel at TechFreedom and an alumnus of the FTC, will moderate a distinguished panel featuring Alden Abbott, the FTC's General Counsel, and Corbin Barthold, TechFreedom's Director of Appellate Litigation. Featuring: -- Hon. Alden Abbott, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission-- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom-- Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom