FedSoc Forums

COVID-19 has changed life as we know it in innumerable ways. But what can we expect from the trial bar and in litigation generally? How will liability issues be sorted during and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? Further, who will decide? How can states and enforcement officials, businesses, and the legal community in general prepare for the coming wave of COVID-related litigation? Featuring: Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, State of GeorgiaHarold Kim, President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Questions of vertical and horizontal separation of powers have risen sharply during the coronavirus pandemic. Join us as John Malcolm and John Yoo discuss the balance of powers between the President, Congress, and state governors over lockdown and re-opening policy, testing, and medical expertise. They will also discuss the control over legal policy toward China and international organizations, recess appointments, and regulation of new technologies to combat the coronavirus.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.

Join us as Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, discusses the priorities and work of his office before, during and after COVID-19.Featuring: -- Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affair (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (Office of Management and Budget ). Executive Order 12291, issued by President Reagan in 1981, gave OIRA the responsibility to review the subject matter of government agency’ regulatory actions before publication in the Federal Register. The Office’s regulatory review persona was initially highly controversial, and it has been criticized throughout the past decades as being both too active and too passive, in regard to agency rules. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum critics fall on however, many believe OIRA is one of the most important, if relatively unknown, sources of government power in relation to the Executive branch and the Administrative state. Although OIRA has a number of specific statutory responsibilities (e.g., paperwork review and regulatory accounting), as a constituent of OMB it is part of the Executive Office of the President, and helps ensure that covered agencies’ rules reflect the President’s policies and priorities.As our final event of our Executive Branch Review week, Paul Ray, head of OIRA, joins us to discuss his work and the current relevant issues facing the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Featuring: -- Hon. Paul J. Ray, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget

In October of 2019, President Trump issued an executive order that imposed a series of restrictions and requirements on Federal agencies, and even included a requirement that agencies publish their guidance on the Internet. The purpose of the executive order was to promote transparency and democratic fairness in the administrative law process. This has led to a renewed debate over what the relationship should be between the executive branch and the administrative state, and has also led to some disagreement over whether the executive order represented any meaningful change from the status quo.Featuring: -- Hon. Steven Bradbury, General Counsel (and performing the functions and duties of Deputy Secretary), U.S. Department of Transportation-- John Walke, Director, Clean Air Project, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council-- 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

Article II of the United States Constitution provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This declarative statement gave rise to a theory of U.S. constitutional law that posits the President should have control over the entire executive branch. This theory has been given increasing attention with the rise of the administrative state. Some argue that the President does not have enough direct power over executive branch agencies, and that this is a violation of the clear statement in Article II Section I of the Constitution. Others argue that allowing the presidency more power would lead to a more dictatorial executive branch, and lead to a weakening of democracy. Proponents of Unitary Executive Theory respond to this concern by arguing that the absence of a unitary executive undermines democracy because without it democratically elected presidents lack the power to enact the policies that the American people elected them to enact, and instead can be stymied by unelected members of the administrative state. Critics of the Unitary Executive Theory assert that the expertise and insulation from political processes necessary to efficiently run government can be found only in the administrative state. The issue has been further complicated by the increased frequency of inter-agency litigation in the form of different executive branch agencies inhabiting both sides of Supreme Court cases. Proponents of the Unitary Executive theory wonder whether an executive branch divided to this extent is what the founders envisioned while writing Article II. Featuring: -- Prof. William Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center-- Hon. Daniel Gallagher, Deputy Chair, Securities Department, WilmerHale and former Commissioner of the SEC-- Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts LLP, and former Commissioner of the FTC-- Prof. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center, former Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection

What is the true role and authority of courts to nullify Federal law? During the Obama administration, district judges issued twenty nationwide injunctions, and during the Trump administration district judges have issued over forty of these injunctions. This has led to questions from both sides of the aisle as to what the proper extent and purpose of such nationwide injunctions should be. The founding fathers set forth a clear system of checks and balances, creating a balance of power and a series of checks to tyranny that could be used to safeguard liberty. But were district courts meant to have the power to stymie laws passed by the federal government? On the other hand, must litigants bring cases in multiple districts or circuits in order to fully prevail?Featuring: -- Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLP-- Hon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, Texas-- Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice

Section 230 of Communications Decency Act protects platforms from liability for the content produced by users. As social media platforms have evolved, concerns about free speech and platform liability have sparked debates among legislators regarding the best way to regulate social media companies. Some have questioned whether Section 230 is the best solution and have proposed Congressional enforcement of ‘platform neutrality.’ Others have argued that Section 230 is the best way to protect free speech. During this program, our experts will debate and discuss Section 230 and how Congress should approach regulation of social media companies.Featuring:-- Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC-- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute-- Josh Divine, Deputy Counsel, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) governs conduct of U.S. businesses and individuals conducting business abroad, penalizing them for paying bribes to foreign officials in business dealings. This teleforum will discuss recent developments in FCPA Enforcement (i.e., the new corporate enforcement policy/declinations, etc.), criticism of enforcement over the past few years, and offer predictions about what enforcement will look like during a second Trump term or a Biden presidency. Rod Rosenstein and Jonathan Su will offer commentary. Featuring: Rod J. Rosenstein, Partner, King & Spalding LLPJonathan C. Su, Partner, Latham & Watkins Moderator: Brian Lichter, Senior Director, Global Investigations, Cognizant This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

This teleforum will be a collaborative discussion for attorneys who represent financial institutions, in particular those organizations that are participating in paycheck protection program created by the CARES Act. Featuring: -- Jennifer R. McCain, Shareholder, Maynard Cooper Gale-- Christian Otteson, Partner, Shapiro Bieging Barber Otteson-- Jonathan Hightower, Partner, Fenimore, Kay, Harrison & Ford, LLP-- C. Wallace Dewitt, Adjunct Scholar, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives