FedSoc Forums

This week, the United States Department of Justice launched its rumored antitrust law suit against Google. The government's complaint brief alleges that Google has a monopoly in search and search advertising, and has unlawfully maintained that monopoly. Among the many complaints, the government points specifically to the billion dollar payments google pays to Apple, in exchange for Apple carrying the search engine on be the de facto search engine on its iOS platform. The Government is alleging that these practices are not in the best interests of consumers or competition. The case is the most high profile antitrust case in decades, and could potentially remake Google, antitrust law, and the internet as we know it. Today's Teleforum is cosponsored by The Bork Foundation, a non-partisan, nonprofit educational foundation just launched, led by Robert H. Bork, Jr. who chairs a board which includes today's speaker, George L. Priest, the Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics and Kauffman Distinguished Research Scholar in Law, Economics, and Entrepreneurship at Yale Law School. The Bork Foundation was launched this month to promote the life and legacy of Robert H. Bork: lawyer, Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, federal appellate court judge, Supreme Court nominee, author, and public intellectual. Featuring: -- George L. Priest, the Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics and Kauffman Distinguished Research Scholar in Law, Economics, and Entrepreneurship at Yale Law School

Join Dean Mazzone and Matt Cavedon for a discussion of major criminal cases at the U.S. Supreme Court from both last year and the current term. Discussion will cover areas of law ranging from the death penalty and searches and seizures to sentencing guidelines and computer crimes.Featuring: Dean A. Mazzone, Senior Trial Counsel, Massachusetts Attorney GeneralMatthew Cavedon, Assistant Public Defender, Northeastern Judicial Circuit 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.

Join us as John Malcolm and John Yoo discuss recent Supreme Court news, the 25th amendment, what happens if the Electoral College deadlocks (or fails), as well as the latest on the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.Featuring: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage FoundationProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Article II and the 12th Amendment require those seeking the office of President and Vice-President be a natural-born citizen. The 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." But what does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" These two texts have been the subject of controversy throughout the past decade, and present interesting legal questions for constitutional theorists. Is it enough to be born in the U.S.A.?In conjunction with the Chapman University and UCLA Federalist Society chapters, the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group is poised to host renowned Constitutional scholars John Eastman and Eugene Volokh. Eastman and Volokh will debate the meaning of the Constitution's citizenship clauses live on Zoom. The Honorable Andrew Guilford, Ret., will moderate with Q&A to follow. Featuring: -- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law-- John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law-- Moderator: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Court, Central District of California

In 2014, Roxanne Torres pleaded guilty to three crimes: aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, assault on a police officer, and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. All of these crimes occurred while Ms. Torres was under the influence of methamphetamine. Ms. Torres was stopped by two police officers only after one shot and wounded her. In October of 2016, she filed a civil rights complaint in federal court against the two arresting officers in which she claimed the officers used excessive force and conspired to use excessive force. After the court interpreted her complaint under the Fourth Amendment, the court dismissed the case claiming the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that because there was no seizure at the time of the shooting, there could be no Fourth Amendment violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. 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.

Consolidated with United States v. Collins, United States v. Briggs challenges the idea that a rape charge may only be prosecuted if it is discovered within five years of the crime. Michael Briggs was found guilty of rape in 2014; however, Briggs claimed that the statute of limitations had expired, as the crime happened in 2005. Briggs was convicted by the U.S. Air Force Criminal Court and, after a fairly complicated procedural route, will now be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.Featuring: Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties; Resident Senior Fellow, R Street InstituteProf. Richard Sala, Assistant Professor of Law, Vermont Law School 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.

Liability in motor vehicle accidents is frequently an issue necessitating litigation, but not typically at the level of the Supreme Court. In this case, though, two incidents rose all the way to our highest court. In a Minnesota accident, a passenger driving a Ford vehicle suffered severe brain injury when the passenger-side airbags failed to deploy during an accident. Ford found itself in another case, this time in Montana, involving a vehicle's tread/belt separation and resulting in fatality for the driver. Despite their efforts to dismiss these claims by citing a lack of personal jurisdiction, the state courts and state supreme courts in both cases affirmed the ruling of liability and negligence on the part of Ford Motor Company. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the "arise out of or relate to" requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident. Featuring:Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal CenterJaime A. Santos, Partner, Goodwin Procter 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.

There was surprising momentum on the issue of insider trading reform at the start of 2020. On December 9, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Insider Trading Prohibition Act with wide bi-partisan support. In January 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission sponsored Bharara Task Force on Insider Trading released a report containing proposed legislation. Both the House bill and the task force's proposal recommend redefining insider trading as the wrongful use of information in securities trading. What do these recommendations for reform mean by "wrongful" use? After evaluating the current state of the law, this panel will discuss the economic and ethical implications of the two reform proposals.Featuring: -- Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale University-- John Anderson, Professor of Law, Mississippi College School of Law, and the author of Insider Trading: Law, Ethics, and Reform-- Moderator: Kevin R. Douglas, Assistant Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law

October 14, 2020 marks the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Staggers Rail Act -- the law that largely deregulated economic dealings within the freight rail sector. So far removed, the anniversary may seem irrelevant, but the opposite is true: rail deregulation serves as an important case study on matters related to competition, markets, rate regulation and capitalism writ large. Please join us for a discussion to analyze the rail regulatory experience and to see if there are any lessons to be learned from efforts to impose "common carrier" utility regulations on other sectors in the American economy. Covered topics will include a summary of rail deregulation, how it continues to be challenged and why core tenets of the Staggers Act are especially relevant for salient discussions related to ratemaking and due process under the Fifth Amendment.Featuring:-- George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies-- Timothy Strafford, Associate General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Association of American Railroads-- Moderator: Lawrence Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies

Clemente Avelino Pereida faced removability charges by the Department of Homeland Security after receiving a conviction of attempted criminal impersonation in Nebraska. As a citizen and native of Mexico, Pereida filed for an application for relief from removal. An immigration judge barred relief from removal, finding moral turpitude in his conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals found that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. 8th Circuit denied Pereida's petition for review.Featuring: -- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland