FedSoc Forums

This teleforum reviews the November 4 oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In March 2018, Philadelphia’s Department of Health and Human Services stopped placing foster children with families certified and supported by Catholic Social Services because the agency, as an arm of the Catholic Church, has a sincere religious objection to endorsing same-sex or unmarried heterosexual relationships. Three foster families supported by Catholic Social Services sued, seeking to continue partnering with their chosen agency and challenging the city's decision on religious free exercise and free speech grounds. The issues before the Supreme Court involve the appropriate standard for a free-exercise claim, reconsideration of the Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and the grounds on which a government can condition foster-care participation.Mark Rienzi, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, joins us to discuss oral arguments. Becket is representing plaintiffs in this case. Featuring: Mark L. Rienzi, President, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to be connected.

As a convicted felon, Charles Borden Jr. was in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) when caught at a traffic stop with a pistol. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, Borden was sentenced to nine years and seven months imprisonment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee relied on the 6th Circuit Court's decision in United States v. Verwiebe as precedent; however, Borden argued that his due process protections were violated in the application of Verwiebe. Borden argued that one of his previous felonies - reckless aggravated assault - did not qualify as a violent felony under the use of force clause. The 6th Circuit retroactively applied the precedent that reckless aggravated assault does constitute a violent crime, and classified Borden as an armed career criminal. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 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.

When it enacted the FTCA, Congress waived sovereign immunity and accepted vicarious liability for certain torts committed by federal employees. The judgment bar provision of the FTCA provides that the judgment in an FTCA action “shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” The question before the Court is whether this judgment bar provision is triggered in an action with both FTCA and constitutional claims, when an FTCA claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will hear this case on November 9, 2020. Featuring: -- Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney, Institute for Justice-- Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins LLP

When it comes to juvenile convictions and sentencing, some gray areas may be encountered. Brett Jones found himself a product of this uncertainty in his post-conviction relief proceeding. At the age of 15 Jones stabbed his grandfather to death and was sentenced to life in prison; however, at this hearing the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered he be resentenced after a hearing to determine his parole eligibility. Simultaneous to this decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana; in Miller, the Court held that mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles was a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and in Montgomery, it clarified that Miller barred life in prison without parole for all juveniles except for "the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility." Despite this precedent, the Circuit court held that Jones was still not entitled to parole eligibility. Featuring: -- Marc Levin, Chief of Policy & Innovation, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation

Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must approve clean water intakes, used by factories to cool machinery, before any are built. The EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct a study of the new intake on marine life. The Sierra Club made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records made by the EPA during the agency's rule making process, including the documentation of consultation with the services. The Services records were withheld citing Exemption 5 of the FOIA shielding from disclosure documents subject to the "deliberative process privilege". The district court determined twelve of the sixteen restricted documents were not subject to Exemption 5. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order to disclose some of the records but reversed the decision regarding two of the records. Our discussion will review the record and discuss next steps.Featuring: Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Nancie G. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla 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.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) makes it a crime (and a tort) to access “without authorization” a computer to obtain information from that computer. But is the CFAA limited to cases in which an outsider hacks into a system or database to gain information, or does it also cover cases where a person who has permission to be on the system uses that permission for manifestly improper purposes – for example, where an employee uses access to their employer’s computers to steal information on those computers for themselves or for a competitor? In Van Buren v. United States, the Supreme Court will address this question, which has vexed federal courts for more than a decade. Mr. Joseph DeMarco, who has filed two amicus briefs in that case, will discuss the legal issues involved in Van Buren and the potential ramifications of the Court’s decision in this closely-watched case. Featuring: Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Iran is in significant non-performance of its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Yet, the United Nations Security Council and America’s European allies have failed to “snapback” sanctions on Iran as agreed in the JCPOA. Join us for a conversation between Brian Hook, former Special Representative for Iran, and Dr. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, for a conversation about the future of U.S.-Iranian policy and how to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions.Featuring: -- Brian Hook, former U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo-- Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Join us as Beth Williams, the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy at the United States Department of Justice, discusses the priorities and work of her office during COVID-19 and 2020. Featuring: -- Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice

Can Catholic judges, consistently with their faith, participate in death penalty cases? Faithful Catholics who have considered the question in recent decades have reached different conclusions. In 1998, Judge Amy Barrett, then a law clerk on the D.C. Circuit, co-authored an article concluding that it is immoral under Church teaching to directly participate in executions in a modern society with a functional prison system. Accordingly, she concluded that Catholic trial judges cannot in good conscience issue a death sentence and have an obligation to recuse themselves from the sentencing phase of capital trials. Appellate judges, on the other hand, need not recuse themselves in capital cases, because they do not directly issue death sentences. Justice Antonin Scalia took a different view. In a 2002 article, he asserted that if the death penalty were immoral under Church teaching, he could not participate in capital cases and would have an obligation to resign from the Supreme Court. But because he believed Catholic teaching affirmed the legitimacy of capital punishment, he concluded that Catholic judges, both trial and appellate, could fully participate in capital cases at every stage. Further complicating matters, Pope Francis has recently declared that the death penalty is “inadmissible”—a term whose significance is a matter of debate—and called on Catholics worldwide to seek the abolition of the death penalty. Ryan Proctor joins us to discuss the Catholic Church’s teaching on capital punishment and its implications for Catholic judges.Featuring:-- Ryan Proctor, Associate, Jones Day

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently issued a Request for Information about the possibility of constructing a new national 5G network on 450 MHz of mid-band spectrum presently assigned to the Department. Access to this spectrum by commercial wireless services could be granted when it is not needed for national security requirements through a dynamic spectrum-sharing arrangement. Many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, as well as members of the Federal Communications Commission, have expressed concern about DoD’s intentions. Recent press reports assert that several high-ranking officials in the White House are pushing the idea despite President Trump’s public opposition to such a plan. Should the DoD proceed with constructing its own network? Should the 450 MHz of mid-band spectrum be auctioned to private providers? Should the Department instead rely on the network services of commercial wireless providers? Please join us for a teleforum with industry experts to discuss the policy and economic implications.Featuring:-- Jon Adame, General Counsel, Office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn-- Kelly Cole, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, CTIA-- George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies-- Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies; member of the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Executive Committee