FedSoc Forums

Corpus linguistics has recently emerged as a method for addressing problems in legal interpretation. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural language, that can be designed to sample the linguistic conventions of a wide variety of speech communities, industries, or linguistic contexts. And corpora (plural of corpus) have begun to see increasing use by judges, scholars, and advocates, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. This Teleforum will first provide an overview for those unfamiliar with corpus linguistics, and then address advantages and limitations of using language evidence from linguistic corpora in legal interpretation, such as when interpreting contracts, statutes, or constitutions, as well as highlight the use of corpus linguistics in recent cases. Featuring: -- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”) to reform elections. Among other things, NVRA specifically provides the right to the public to inspect and copy state voting records. Section 8 of the NVRA requires election officials to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of – (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant[.]” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4). Section 8 also requires that election officials shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters. Section 8 also mandates that any such list maintenance programs or activities “shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.).” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(b)(1).Are the various requirements of the National Voter Registration Act being followed? Does the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased calls for vote by mail, provide an opening to transform the way America conducts elections? Does the presence of ineligible registrants on voter rolls open the door for improperly cast votes? Featuring: -- Linda A. Kerns, Attorney, Law Offices of Linda A. Kerns, LLC-- J. Christian Adams, General Counsel, Election Law Center, Public Interest Legal Foundation-- Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, Vote at Home, and Author of When Women Vote-- Charles Stewart III, Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The U.S. State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights was formed in July 2019 to advise the Secretary of State on human rights and their relationship to American foreign policy. The Commission, chaired by Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon and including ten other academics, philosophers, and activists from across religious and ethical traditions, released its draft report on July 16, 2020. The Commission reviewed the American tradition of rights discourse, going back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the principles enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The aim was to deepen understanding of fundamental human rights in order to enable the United States to better uphold and advance unalienable, non-derogable rights in the formation and execution of foreign policy.Professor Robert P. George joins us to discuss the Commission’s work, the traditions on which the commissioners drew, and the challenges to human rights today. Professor William Saunders will moderate the conversation.Featuring:-- Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions-- William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America and Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology

The next presidential inauguration will be on January 20, 2021. The six months between then and today will involve a flurry of regulatory activity, just as the final months of presidential terms always do. Whether the next inauguration features Donald Trump or Joe Biden, agencies will try to complete as many regulatory proceedings as possible before the inauguration, with an eye to not just the end of the current presidential term but also the beginning of the next one.What actions should we expect agencies to take? To what extent can the current administration issue “midnight rules” affecting policy beyond January 20? And to what extent could the Congressional Review Act permanently erase those rules?To discuss these questions, we will be joined by three experts on administrative law and the administrative state:-- Mr. Daniel R. Pérez, Senior Policy Analyst, GW Regulatory Studies Center-- Prof. Jack Beerman, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law School-- Moderator: Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sought to exercise regulatory flexibilities where possible to expedite the development of timely medical products and ensure the safety of consumers. As the pandemic has evolved and new scientific evidence has emerged, the FDA has needed to adapt its policies and develop new programs to support the public health response. In this teleforum, senior agency officials will share their perspectives on the key medical, legal, and regulatory considerations during the pandemic. Examples of discussion topics will include (1) the application of emergency use authorizations to expedite the development of COVID-19 tests, (2) regulatory lessons from the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, and (3) legal actions to protect consumers from fraudulent medical products during the pandemic as part of the agency’s Operation Quack Hack.Featuring: -- Stacy Amin, Chief Counsel, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Deputy General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services-- Anand Shah, MD, Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration-- Moderator: Stephen J. Cox, 39th United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas

Employers are increasingly being faced with difficult issues with respect to COVID-19, including challenging labor and employment issues. Various federal and state statutes present compliance issues for employers, particularly given the recent enactment of the First Families Act and the CARES Act at the federal level. Existing federal statutes such as the National Labor Relations Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also present labor and employment law challenges for employers. This three-part teleforum series will review federal and state labor and employment issues and options for employers to consider. Federalist Society Labor and Employment Executive Committee members, Tammy McCutchen and G. Roger King will be the speakers for this teleforum series. Ms. McCutchen is a Shareholder with the Littler Mendelson law firm and former head of the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. Mr. King is Senior Labor and Employment Counsel for the HR Policy Association and previously a Partner at the Jones Day law firm.Featuring:-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association-- Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was intended to be the principal forum for setting the rules of international trade and for the resolution of international trade disputes. The United States has expressed its concern with the WTO’s dispute settlement system and the Administration has blocked new appointments to the Appellate Body such that there are now insufficient judges necessary to hear new appeals. The situation does not appear likely to be resolved soon. Please join Stephen Vaughn, the former General Counsel to the United States Trade Representative and previous acting U.S. Trade Representative, for a conversations regarding the ongoing conflict, relevant issues, and thoughts regarding the future of the US and the WTO. The discussion will be moderated by Daniel Pickard.Featuring:-- Stephen Vaughn, Partner in the International Trade Team of King & Spalding, former General Counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and acting U.S. Trade Representative. -- Moderator: Daniel Pickard, Partner in the International Trade practice and Co-Chair of the National Security practice, Wiley Rein LLP

In this Teleforum, two of the nation’s leading scholars of presidential power — and former office mates — debate whether Trump’s aggressive fight for presidential power goes beyond the Founders’ original designs. In his new book, Defender in Chief (St. Martin’s 2020), John Yoo argues that Trump — despite his populism — has become more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In The Living Presidency (Harvard 2020), Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern Presidents, has violated the Constitution’s grant of executive power.Featuring: Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, 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.

This month, more than 50 bar owners across Arizona filed a special action challenging Governor Ducey's executive order (calling for a 'pause' in operations of bars and some other businesses) directly in the Arizona Supreme Court. The petitioners claim the Governor's order violates the nondelegation doctrine and the privileges or immunities clause in the Arizona constitution. The state supreme court has discretion whether to accept review and hear this case; we could learn the answer to that question as early as next week. Join the bar owners’ lawyer, ASU law professor Ilan Wurman, and AZ Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer Perkins, to discuss the case and its potential implications. Featuring: Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State UniversityModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One 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 July 16, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality published the long-awaited revision to its regulation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a final rule (85 Fed. Reg. 43304). NEPA requires agencies to study the environmental impacts of major actions that could significantly impact the environment. But does the new rule make the environmental review process significantly more synchronized and predictable? Does it address the Trump's administration's "One Federal Decision" policy? It clarifies key terms where the original 1978 regulation, and subsequent federal court decisions, have significantly expanded the burdens and litigation risks of the NEPA process, but will new provisions on exhaustion of objections during comment periods reduce litigation risk for agencies and uncertainties for project applicants and other stakeholders? Together with the Trump administration's other major infrastructure reform initiatives, will the new rule help pave the way for significant expansion and modernization of America's infrastructure? Mario Loyola, formerly associate director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was intimately involved in President Trump's infrastructure efforts, and will review some of the most significant changes of the new NEPA regulation.  Featuring:-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute