FedSoc Forums

In 1787, there existed a well-developed body of law on the subject of infectious diseases. Over the next 150 years, the nation dealt with new viral challenges as contagion(s) spread through wartime, imperial ventures in tropical regions, and the oft-referenced Spanish Flu. What was the legal framework in 1787, and which curtailments of civil liberties were palatable to the Founders? To what extent do local, state, and federal police powers overlap, and to what degree are those authorities empowered to restrict freedom of contract, travel, and the practice of religious communion? These and other topics will be discussed.Featuring: Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

In a decision in Ramos v. Louisiana handed down on April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a unanimous jury verdict in both federal and state courts. In reaching its decision, the Court fractured over the precedential weight it should accord its prior Sixth Amendment decisions, raising significant doctrinal questions about the role of stare decisis in constitutional cases. John C. Richter, former U.S. Attorney and acting head of the Criminal Division, will discuss the decision and its ramifications.Featuring: John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, 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.

Broadcasters—not the FCC—are responsible for selecting the material that they air. This is why the Commission recently denied a petition filed by Free Press, a public interest group focused on media issues, requesting that the Commission investigate broadcasters that have aired the President’s statements and press conferences regarding the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and related commentary by other on-air personalities. The petition asked the Commission, under its public interest authority and its rules regulating the broadcast of dangerous hoaxes, to investigate these broadcasts and adopt emergency enforcement guidance “recommending that broadcasters prominently disclose when information they air is false or scientifically suspect.” The Commission denied this petition, citing both the First Amendment and Section 326 of the Communications Act: The Commission does not—and cannot and will not—act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Free Press’s assertions regarding any lack of veracity were true, false speech enjoys some First Amendment protection, and section 326 of the Communications Act, reflecting First Amendment values, prohibits the Commission from interfering with freedom of the press or censoring broadcast communications. Thomas Johnson, General Counsel of the FCC and the co-author of the Commission’s letter denying this petition, as well as Randolph May, Founder and President of the Free State Foundation, will discuss the Commission’s response to this petition, as well as broader First Amendment and policy issues raised by the Commission’s role in regulating broadcast journalism. Does the Commission have a duty, as Free Press asserts, “to rein in broadcasters that seed confusion with lies and disinformation”? What is the Commission’s role in regulating broadcast journalism, and how does it square this role with the First Amendment? To what extent does the First Amendment protect false or misleading speech? Featuring: Thomas Johnson, General Counsel, FCC Randolph May, Founder and President, Free State Foundation This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

As small businesses across the country grapple with the current and potential impacts associated with COVID-19, the National Federation of Independent Business continues to track the latest developments from healthcare officials, congress and the administration. Please join us to hear about how the organization is supporting small businesses during this time, and which government policies are positively and negatively affecting business operations today and down the road. Featuring: -- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

The Singapore Convention on Mediation was opened for signature on August 7, 2019, with the United States, China, and India among its first signatories. The Convention is “expected to bring certainty and stability to the international framework on mediation” by streamlining the process by which foreign jurisdictions will enforce settlement agreements resulting from mediation. This program will discuss the Convention’s potential impact on international commerce as well as its implementation in the United States.Featuring:-- Prof. Roger Alford, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School-- Gary Birnberg, JAMS Mediator and Arbitrator-- Mushegh Manukyan, Mediation Specialist, Office of the Ombudsman for UN Funds and Programmes, United Nations -- Harout J. Samra, Associate, DLA Piper

Almost exactly a year ago—on April 1, 2019—New York State enacted groundbreaking bail reform that eliminated cash bail for almost 90% of arrests and resulted in a 30% drop in the statewide jail population. The measure took effect on January 1, 2020, and the backlash from law enforcement, local newspapers, elected officials in opposition, the bail bond industry, and even the general public was strong, swift, and immediate. A few weeks ago, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature approved roll backs to the law, despite it having been in effect for only three months. Join Insha Rahman and Craig Trainor for a discussion—from different perspectives—about New York's bail reform law, its impact, proposals to reform the reform, and why roll backs were passed in the midst of a global pandemic.Featuring: -- Insha Rahman, Director of Strategy and New Initiatives,Vera Institute of Justice-- Craig Trainor, Founder, Trainor Law, P.C.

Commissioner Phillips will join us to discuss data privacy and the COVID pandemic. Other topics may include the impact of new technologies in addressing the crisis, how the FTC and other privacy enforcers around the world are responding, the ways in which the FTC works with industry, and what today tells us about the future. Commissioner Phillips will also discuss the potential for a future federal privacy bill.Featuring:-- Noah Phillips, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

As corporations and even entire municipalities are increasingly advising or requiring their employees to work from home in light of COVID-19, it is important to remember that doing so it not without its risks. For any organization that has information to protect -- whether customer or employee personal information, financial information, or confidential and proprietary trade secrets -- permitting company data to travel home with or be remotely accessed by employees raises the chances of a cyber incident involving that data. When a “cyber-mishap” occurs, the company may have a duty to report the incident to consumers, regulators and business counterparties. Put simply, cyber criminals are not expected to take a “corona-holiday.” In fact, some might even prey on vulnerabilities created by the situation. Fortunately, there still is time to address the potential privacy and data security risks — and to develop clear guidance for employees to follow. These policies should be tailored to each company’s specific risk profile and communicated clearly to all employees. While every organization’s information security defenses are unique, some of the most common risks to be addressed concerning remote work include the following: unsecure personal and public WiFi networks; working on unsecure personal devices; transferring corporate data using personal e-mail accounts; synching with personal cloud storage accounts; physical document management and destruction; unsecure connections to employer systems; unsecure conference call lines; and phishing schemes and other frauds. Because many employees are justifiably concerned for the health and safety of themselves and their families, it is understandable if data security is not their first priority. However, with some careful planning, well-defined policies, and transparent communication between employees and management, companies should be able to maintain the security of their data while keeping their employees safe.Featuring: -- Nicholas Degani, Senior Counsel, Federal Communications Commission-- Paul Eisler, Director, Cybersecurity, USTelecom -- Joseph V. DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP

This teleforum provides a wide-ranging discussion on the recent developments in the China-Taiwan relationship. It explores the role that the United States may have in light of Taiwan Relations Act obligations and regional stability to provide both assurance and support to our ally, Taiwan, while - at the same time - examining concerns over the range of Chinese reactions. Featuring: -- Dr. June Teufel Dreyer, Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables-- Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University-- Moderator: Saul Newsome, Attorney, Newsome International Law, LLC

Watchlisting people with known or suspected ties to terrorism has long been a key tool among U.S. counterterrorism and transportation security programs. For just as long, a wide range of people – from U.S. citizens to foreign nationals with no legal status in the United States – have litigated their suspected presence on watchlists or no-fly lists, claiming that those lists, or aspects of their administration, violate various tenets of due process and other rights. Last year, courts were particularly rough on the federal agencies charged with curating and using watchlists. For the first time, a district court held the government’s procedures with respect to the FBI’s centralized Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), violates procedural due process of a group of twenty-three U.S. citizen plaintiffs. On the heels of that decision, the Supreme Court declined to review an en banc opinion by the Ninth Circuit suggesting that the government acted in bad faith with respect to the nearly 15-year long litigation concerning Malaysian national Rahinah Ibrahim’s one-time inclusion on the TSA’s no-fly list.Join former DHS General Counsel Joe Whitley and Professor Tung Yin for a fascinating conversation on these cases and the current legal and policy landscapes concerning watchlists. The discussion will be moderated by the former Senior Advisor for Legal Policy at the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, Adam Pearlman.Featuring: -- Hon. Joe D. Whitley, Chair, Government Enforcement & Investigations Group, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC-- Prof. Tung Yin, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School-- Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Managing Director, Lexpat Global Services