Teleforum

The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero is a new book exploring the life and legacy of a towering but sometimes forgotten jurist. Harlan, who served over 30 years on America's highest court, earned a reputation for being a champion of civil liberties -- notably, he was the lone dissenter in the Civil Rights Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson. Author Peter Canellos joins us to discuss his new book and Justice Harlan's legacy. Featuring: Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonPeter S. Canellos, Managing Editor, PoliticoModerator: Hon. Victor Wolski, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims---This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.

The Federalist Society's Criminal Law and Procedure and Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Groups bring you a roundtable discussion with leading Fourth Amendment scholars and litigators reviewing the major Fourth Amendment decisions from the 2020-2021 term and previewing the future of the Fourth Amendment at the High Court. What is the fate of Katz, the third-party doctrine, and the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement? What is the best method of interpreting the Amendment and will we see a revival of its original meaning? Four Fourth Amendment experts review:Caniglia v. Strom, a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas rejecting the warrantless search of a home under the “community caretaking exception.”Lange v. Caniglia, an opinion written by Justice Kagan rejecting a categorical exception to the warrant requirement for a fleeing misdemeanant.Torres v. Madrid, a 5-3 decision by Chief Justice Roberts with a resounding dissent by Justice Gorsuch, debating wh

The Supreme Court recently issued its decisions in two federal vaccine mandate cases. Several states and interest groups sought emergency relief on regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The OSHA rule required large employers to require vaccination or regular testing of their employees. CMS required vaccination of staff at health care facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid programs. The Court granted a stay of the OSHA rule pending merits review in the Sixth Circuit, but stayed an injunction of the CMS rule allowing it to go into effect. But federal agencies are not the only actors setting vaccine policy. Effective January 15th, the D.C. government will require restaurants and other businesses to check customer vaccine status. Meanwhile Florida has taken a different approach, and has barred businesses from checking employee or customer vaccine status. This panel will review the decisions and also consider

Join us for the fourth episode of the Federalist Society's Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. During the first two weeks of January, the Justices will hear eight oral arguments on cases including the First Amendment – both the speech and religion clauses, immigration, tax law, and Medicaid, and more.This episode will also feature discussion of the OSHA vaccine mandate oral argument scheduled for January 7.Gallardo v. Marstiller – reimbursement under the Federal Medicaid Act for tort recovery (Jan. 10)Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez – immigration (Jan. 11)Garland v. Gonzalez – immigration (Jan. 11)Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue – tax law (Jan. 12)Shurtleff v. Boston – First Amendment – speech and religion (Jan. 18)Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation – Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and choice of law (Jan. 18)Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Sena

The Clean Water Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army to regulate discharges to “navigable waters,” defined in the statute as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” The agency regulations further defining these terms have engendered controversy and litigation for decades.Since 2015, the agencies have modified their Navigable Waters regulations three times, and dozens of federal lawsuits have challenged the various versions. Meanwhile, the validity of these regulations have been the key issue in several enforcement cases.On December 7, 2021, the agencies proposed yet a fourth revision in six years to the regulatory definition of Navigable Waters.This teleforum will update listeners on the key pending cases that may have an ultimate effect on the agency regulations, and provide an overview of the proposed new regulation. Featuring:Charles Yates, attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation’s environmental practice group, where he litigates

This webinar will host a debate over the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony. In August 2021, the federal judiciary’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules published proposed amendments to Rule 702 to include within the text of the rule language directly stating that the proponent of expert testimony must establish each of Rule 702’s elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Currently, Rule 702 does not explicitly include a preponderance standard, but merely cross-references the preponderance standard included under another evidentiary rule. A year’s worth of research into federal cases analyzing the current Rule 702 reveals that some courts apply a preponderance standard while others apply a more relaxed policy favoring admissibility.The Advisory Committee will host a public hearing on January 21, 2022, and those wishing to testify are asked to reserve a spot 30 days in advance. The Committee is also accepting public comm

Late in 2020, several pharmaceutical companies developed vaccines for Covid-19 that received FDA approval, first for emergency use and then for general use. Next came the question of whether the federal or state governments should mandate vaccination or leave that decision to individuals. The states have generally deferred to the federal government, and Congress punted punted the question to President Joe Biden. At first, he tried to persuade the public, and numerous people were vaccinated. In September 2021, however, the President changed course, expressing dissatisfaction with the rate of vaccination. Among other things, he ordered the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to promulgate an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring all employees at companies with 100 or more employees to be vaccinated or receive weekly negative test results to remain at the workplace. Numerous parties challenged the OSHA Vaccination Mandate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the effect

Please join us for the latest installment in our Talks with Authors Series, in which author Stephen Soukup sits down for an interview with Eileen O’Connor about his book The Dictatorship of Woke Capital. Perhaps you recall learning that the obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits, thus preserving and increasing shareholder value. Perhaps you even thought that was still a top priority of corporate executives. But more likely, if you hadn’t been aware of it already, it came to your attention during the last year or two that corporations were inserting themselves into public policy debates, and making decisions about where and how to operate based on considerations far removed from their businesses. In The Dictatorship of Woke Capital, Stephen Soukup describes how the focus of corporate attention went from shareholder value to woke capital. He takes us step by step through the evolution, from its beginning. He identifies the people and groups who have played and continue to play a major role in

On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and dismissed the federal government's suit against Texas in United States v. Texas. The Court held 8-1 in Jackson that plaintiff abortion providers can pursue claims against licensing officials.Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined in full by Justices Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, with Justice Thomas joining as to all but one part. Justices Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined, while Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined.A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join us to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International Unive

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra. One of the certified questions asks the Court to revisit the famed Chevron doctrine which has been subjected to much criticism since its implementation. The petitioners ask the Court whether Chevron allows the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates for hospital groups and whether 42 U.S.C. 1395I(t)(12) precludes the petitioners' suit. Rich Samp of the New Civil Liberties Alliance which filed an amicus brief in the litigation before the Court joins us to discuss the oral argument. Featuring: Richard A. Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Student Member, Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group Executive Committee; 3L Student, Harvard Law School ---To register, click the link above.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual Americans to keep a handgun in their homes for self-defense. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court is expected to decide whether New York violated the Second Amendment by denying the applications of two law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon in public.Oral argument in this case was held on November 3. In this webinar, two Second Amendment experts will discuss the arguments, as well as the effects that the decision, whichever way it goes, might have on government power to enforce the criminal law.Featuring: Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason Univeristy, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolAdam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Moderator: Nelson Lund, Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School ---To register, click the link above.

On December 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carson v. Makin on the question of whether a state violates the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction.We are joined by two experts, one of whom will argue the case before the Supreme Court for the petitioner, to discuss the legal issues involved and the implications of oral arguments. Featuring:Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeDaniel Mach, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief---This Zoom event is open to the press and public.

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.This distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed.You can view our pre-argument webinar here.Featuring:Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, BerkeleyProf. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center, Inde

The ongoing, high-decibel, public debate over vaccine mandates has entered its litigation phase. Please join us for a conversation with one of the country’s leading vaccine and civil rights litigators, Aaron Siri of Siri|Glimstad. Mr. Siri will provide a litigation update and summarize the issues and strategic challenges facing litigators, their clients, and policy makers. Our host will be Robert Destro, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Professor of Law at The Catholic University of America. Together, they will discuss the evidentiary and human rights issues facing lawyers who plan to challenge the public health regime.Featuring:Aaron Siri, Managing Partner, Siri Glimstad Moderator: Robert Destro, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America---To receive a copy of the documents referenced during this webinar, please email pg@fed-soc.org with the subject line "Vaccination Mandate Documents."

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.In defending its ban on abortions after 15-weeks gestation, Mississippi asks the Court to overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, arguing that the cases were egregiously wrong because a right to abortion has no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. Mississippi further argues that the various frameworks have proved hopelessly unworkable; that the cases have inflicted severe damage on democratic self-government, on the country, and on the understanding that the Supreme Court is a neutral arbiter of the law; that they have been overtaken by a better legal and factual understanding; that reliance interests do not support upholding Roe and that accordingly stare decisis principles counsel in favor of overruli

Join us for the third episode of the Federalist Society's Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts will convene to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket and debrief oral arguments from the previous month. During the first two weeks of December, the Justices will hear ten oral arguments on cases including abortion, religious freedom, habeas, Chevron deference, and the Civil Rights Act.Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation - Medicare (Nov 29)Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C. – compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act for victims of discrimination/emotional distress (Nov. 30)American Hospital Association v. Becerra – Chevron deference and preclusion, HHS (Nov. 30)Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – abortion (Dec. 1)Patel v. Garland – immigration, federal courts jurisdiction (Dec. 6)Hughes v. Northwestern University – ERISA, breach of fiduciary duty (Dec. 6)United States v. Taylor – Hobbs Act, criminal law, armed robbery (Dec. 7)CVS Pharmacy In

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced. A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are t

Join us for the second episode of the Federalist Society’s Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts will convene to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket and debrief oral arguments from the previous month. During the first two weeks of November, the Justices will hear ten oral arguments on cases including the Second Amendment, free speech, abortion, and religious freedom. The case names, issues, and dates of argument are listed below:Whole Women's Health v. Jackson – Abortion – November 1United States v. Texas (2021) - Abortion, Federal Jurisdiction - November 1 Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson – First Amendment – November 2Badgerow v. Walters – Arbitration – November 2New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen – Second Amendment – November 3FBI v. Fazaga – National Security – November 8 Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M – Intellectual Property – November 8United States v.

The last few months have seen significant changes at the Federal Trade Commission. The new FTC has set an ambitious agenda that revives the agency, propelling it in directions we haven’t previously seen. The FTC is poised to engage in wide-ranging antitrust and consumer protection investigations, issue industry-wide rules, and blend antitrust and consumer missions for a better outcome.Featuring: -- Adam Cella, Attorney Advisor, Office of Hon. Christine Wilson, Federal Trade Commission-- Debbie Feinstein, Partner and Chair, Global Antitrust, Arnold & Porter-- Jessica Rich, Of Counsel, Kelley Drye; former Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission-- Moderator: Svetlana Gans, former Chief of Staff, Federal Trade Commission* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) global ambitions have involved more than seventy countries. For the United States, these BRI developments and independent influence operations in South America raise security and strategy concerns. In the region south of Mexico and related seas, China is reportedly participating in more than two dozen deep-water port expansion and building projects. The PRC’s deepening relationship with Panama’s government has raised alarm, but China is also engaging with Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, and Venezuela. China’s People’s Liberation Army operates a space station from the south of Argentina. Is China exporting digital authoritarianism through surveillance architecture, as seen most recently with the Fatherland Identity Card in Venezuela? Are there long-term implications for the ability of Latin American countries to make autonomous sovereign decisions, and for longevity of U.S. relationships in the region?Featuring:-- Dr. Evan Ellis, Latin America Research Professor, U.S. Army Wa