FedSoc Forums

On November 25, 2020, the Supreme Court barred New York Governor Andrew Cuomo from enforcing Executive Order 202.68 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Application for injunctive relief was granted in the per curiam opinion. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Kagan. Eric Rassbach joins us to discuss the case and its implications.Featuring: -- Eric Rassbach, Vice President & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

The case of Edwards v. Vannoy will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on December 2, 2020. At issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. William McClintock joins us to offer commentary on the case and the oral arguments. Featuring:William S. McClintock, Associate, King & Spalding LLP 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.

The case of Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe I (consolidated with Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I) will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on December 1, 2020. At issue is whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity. Also at issue is whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations. David Rybicki joins us to discuss the case and the oral arguments at the Supreme Court.Featuring:David C. Rybicki, Partner, K&L Gates LLP 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.

The case of Van Buren v. United States will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on November 30, 2020. At issue is whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose. Prof. Orin Kerr joins us to discuss the case, the oral arguments, and its implications.Featuring: Prof. Orin Kerr, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law 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 November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. New York. The case has garnered widespread media attention and arose over the attempt by the Trump administration to exclude noncitizens from the population numbers for the purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court will decide whether New York and the twenty states that filed suit against the administration have standing, and whether policy is within the power of the President's discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment. The case will bear on the short- and long-term future of congressional elections.Featuring: -- Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

The post-modern social science framework of “critical race theory” is well-known in certain academic circles and trending in corporate settings. CRT-inspired concepts and terminology-- such as “white privilege,” “intersectionality,” “implicit bias,” “microaggressions,” and “systemic racism”—are increasingly used in ethnic studies curricula in higher education. Robin DiAngelo’s NYT best-seller “White Fragility” (2018) brought mainstream attention to some CRT concepts and terminology. This year, the death of George Floyd served as the impetus for many institutions, including corporate employers, governmental entities, and some K-12 school systems, to adopt responsive training for employees and students. In some cases, existing EEO and diversity training programs were enhanced to target anti-racism issues. Critics have charged that CRT training itself contains racial stereotypes, assigns blame to individuals based solely on their race and sex, and imputes race discrimination as the reason for all disparate outcomes in society. Some employees have complained that being subjected to CRT training constitutes workplace harassment and/or discrimination. Proponents of CRT contend that disparate outcomes can only or best be explained by lingering, systemic racism. President Trump generated controversy in September when OMB Director Russell Vought released a memo instructing federal agencies to identify CRT training within federal agencies, with an eye to stop funding such programs. President Trump also issued an executive order forbidding such training by federal contractors. Our speakers will discuss the background and utilization of CRT, and explore whether the use of CRT (or similar theories) in workplace or K-12 contexts raises legal issues. They will grapple with the foundational question: Is CRT’s focus on race contrary to the traditional goal of a color blind society?Featuring: Mike Gonzalez, Senior Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy and Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Fellow, The Heritage FoundationPeter N. Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLPProfessor Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawProfessor Daria Roithmayr, Richard L. and Antoinette S. Kirtland Professor of Law, USC Gould School of LawModerator: Mark Pulliam, Contributing Editor, Law & Liberty 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.

In NFIB v. Sibelius, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by branding the penalty for not buying health insurance as a tax. In 2017 however, the Republican-controlled Congress under the newly elected President Trump enacted an amendment to the ACA that set the penalty for not buying health insurance to zero, leaving the rest of the ACA in place. Several states, including Texas, subsequently filed suit in federal court challenging the individual mandate again, positing that because the penalty was now zero, it can no longer be considered a tax and is thus unconstitutional. California and several other states joined the lawsuit in defense of the individual mandate. The oral arguments for the case took place on November 10th, and Professor Ilya Somin joins us to discuss the oral argument and the implications for the case. Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

The National Labor Relations Board has been busy, with new standards about offensive workplace conduct, labor contract management rights clauses, discipline issues, arbitration, and independent contractors, among other things. And the NLRB has proposed and adopted more regulations – addressing joint employer status, representation election procedures, election disclosures, college student assistants, and more – than any other time in the past 85 years. In this session, the latest insights regarding NLRB developments will be presented by Roger King (the HRPA’s Senior Labor and Employment Counsel) and Philip Miscimarra (former NLRB Chairman), who will also address the NLRB’s outlook for 2021 and beyond.Featuring:-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Assocation -- Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP

We are pleased to present the annual Mike Lewis Memorial teleforum. Professor Lewis was a naval aviator, internationally renowned law professor, and tireless public advocate for a principled and wise application of the Law of Armed Conflict, consistent with both the values and interests of the United States. He was a great friend of the Federalist Society, speaking at dozens of events and serving on the Executive Committee of its International & National Security Law Practice Group. His life was tragically cut short by cancer.This year’s teleforum will focus on The International Criminal Court (ICC). The current Prosecutor has chosen to focus attention on U.S. actions in Afghanistan. The Trump administration responded with targeted sanctions on two ICC officials. Meanwhile, the ICC is attempting to rewrite the law of armed conflict to narrow permissible targeting. Current plans call for the selection of a third prosecution and six new judges. The incoming administration faces a range of challenges from the court. These and related matters will be explored by Professor Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. He is also a former military officer, and an experienced practitioner before international tribunals. He recently filed an amicus brief on the Law of Targeting at the request of the ICC. His discussion will be facilitated by Professor Jeremy Rabkin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.Featuring: -- Prof. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law at Vanderbilt Law School-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In his new book The Property Species, Chapman University law professor Bart Wilson offers a strikingly original look at the origin and meaning of private property. Unlike scholars who argue that property is a “social construct,” Wilson argues that property is a deeply and uniquely human practice. Incorporating insights from history, linguistics, law, and his own laboratory experiments, Wilson illuminates the means by which our ideas of private property originate and gain their moral and legal force. In this conversation with Goldwater Institute’s Timothy Sandefur, our Teleforum will examine how the institution of private property marks human beings as “the property species.”Featuring:-- Professor Bart J. Wilson, Director of the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy at Chapman University and author of The Property Species-- Moderator: Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute