Teleforum

As students prepare return to universities across the country, many schools are putting in place Covid vaccine mandates. These mandates require proof of vaccination, and typically include medical and religious exemptions. But, as Professor Ronald Colombo's new paper raises, some kinds of exemption schemes may be unjustly discriminatory. Beyond the issue of exemptions, some students and staff object to the mandates as such. A group of students challenged one such mandate at Indiana University; in July, a district court judge sided with the university, and the ruling was recently upheld 3-0 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. These cases, the nature of the mandates and exemptions, and more were discussed in this virtual program.Featuring:-- Prof. Ronald J. Colombo, Professor of Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University-- Moderator: Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues

Last year, the Oregon state bar Bulletin ran two controversial comments. State bar members objected, arguing that because membership in the state bar is mandatory, publication of the comments constituted impermissible political commentary, and mandatory state bar dues could not be used to subsidize activity unrelated to the regulation of the state bar. The case landed in the Ninth Circuit which affirmed the district court without deciding whether the controversial comments were germane to the bar’s purpose. Instead, the Court held that the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Keller v. State Bar of California foreclosed the plaintiff’s speech claim, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that since Abood—which underwrote Keller—had been overruled, exacting scrutiny governed speech claims in the context of mandatory bar membership. The plaintiffs appeal this question to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to either read Keller to require exacting scrutiny or to overrule Keller and provide clarity to the courts acros

On July 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit issued a decision in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. University of Iowa et al. A three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Loken, Grasz, and Kobes held that University officials violated the First Amendment when they deregistered a Christian student group, further holding that the university officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. The University of Iowa deregistered two Christian student groups, finding that the groups violated the University’s “Human Rights Policy” by requiring their membership and/or leadership to sign a statement of faith in order to join. The first group—Business Leaders in Christ—sued and successfully received a preliminary injunction. Following that litigation, the University reviewed its human rights policy and then deregistered the second group—InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. InterVarsity fought the deregistration, then sued alleging the application of the human rights policy was discrimina

On June 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled a shareholder-plaintiff had standing to sue California’s Secretary of State. Creighton Meland, a shareholder at OSI Systems, Inc., sued alleging that Senate Bill 826, which was signed into law in 2018, violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it requires corporations to elect a sliding scale quota of women to corporate board member seats. The District Court ruled Meland had no standing because SB 826 governed corporations, not shareholders, and at the time of Meland’s suit OSI was in compliance so any controversy was moot.The Ninth Circuit disagreed, allowing Meland’s suit to go forward by finding that the practical effect of SB 826 was to govern shareholders and direct them to vote on the basis of gender to avoid the imposition of fines or penalties for noncompliance. The court further held that Meland’s suit alleged a direct harm and did not rely on prudential standing since he alleged personal harm rather than in

With expressions ranging from enthusiasm to serious interest, central banks from China to Europe have been actively exploring the potential for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). On June 28, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman for Supervision Randal Quarles offered comments that, far from equivocal, expressed great doubt about the feasibility and desirability for the Federal Reserve sponsoring such a currency.Controversies focus on CBDC implications for privacy, greater personal financial inclusion, government control of credit, innovation, government assumption of banking activities, broadening the tax base, and more.Featuring:-- Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Co. Inc.-- Chris Giancarlo, Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher-- Peter C. Earle, Writer, American Institute for Economic Research-- Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R. Street Institute* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opi

This virtual event examined current national security issues, including relations with China, as well as coordination with allies, utilization of available legal tools, and whether those tools might be effective.Featuring:-- Hon. Nazak Nikakhtar, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP. Nazak served as Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration. She also served as the U.S. government’s top official for export controls on dual-use items and technologies, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties as Under Secretary for the Bureau of Industry and Security.-- Adam J. Szubin, Of Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. Mr. Szubin served for two years as Acting Treasury Department Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. During his nearly 13 year tenure at the Treasury, Mr. Szubin served as the Director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for nine years and Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Fin

With Democrats holding power in both houses of Congress and the White House, how will congressional oversight and investigations affect private industry and the Biden Administration during the 117th Congress? What should we expect if Republicans take back one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections? What should private entities expect from congressional investigations, and what effect will recent court decisions such as Mazars have on industry? A panel of current and former congressional investigators will discuss these issues and more, as well as how recent investigations and judicial decisions will affect the structural relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch in the years ahead.Featuring: -- Ashley Callen, Deputy Staff Director, House Oversight and Reform Committee-- Daniel Goshorn, Chief Investigative Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance-- Allison Murphy, Former Chief Oversight Counsel of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Majority Staff; Partner in the

Opioid deaths in the US rose 29% during the course of the recent COVID pandemic. More than 55,000 Americans die annually from opioid consumption. Overtaken to some extent by other events, the opioid crisis is still with us and might be getting worse. The four participants in this panel discussion brought a wealth of experience and insight to this ongoing problem from both a law enforcement and public health perspective. Discussion ranged from the successes and failures of various law enforcement strategies and experiences to the efficacy of various public health policies and their often unintended consequences. This panel examined and discussed what has been learned to date in the efforts and what those lessons should tell us about what needs to be done to end the opioids crisis.Featuring: -- Robert M. Duncan, Jr., Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP-- Christina E. Nolan, Shareholder, Sheehey Furlong & Behm PC-- Prof. Tomas J. Philipson, Daniel Levin Professor of Public Policy, University of Chicago-- Jeffr

A Dubious Expediency: How Race Preferences Damage Higher Education is a collection of eight essays written by experts in the field examining and analyzing the impact of racial diversity preferences and identity politics in American colleges and universities. The book’s title comes from a 1976 California Supreme Court opinion in Bakke v. UC Regents authored by Justice Stanley Mosk, who wrote:“To uphold the [argument for race-preferential admissions] would call for the sacrifice of principle for the sake of dubious expediency and would represent a retreat in the struggle to assure that each man and woman shall be judged on the basis of individual merit alone, a struggle which has only lately achieved success in removing legal barriers to racial equality.”In the book, the authors take up the question of race-based preferences in higher education, arguing that mounting empirical evidence shows race-based solutions cause long term harm both to intended beneficiaries and to society as a whole. Fe

Aside from the purely legal questions already addressed in this programming series, how should we think about the practical and philosophical questions at stake? Many of us start with the presumption that the social media companies are private businesses and therefore may operate according to viewpoint norms as their owners see fit. But the growing reliance on big tech platforms, combined with the behavior of such platforms in restricting the scope of permissible speech, has raised concerns across the political spectrum, including among those of generally libertarian policy preferences. And the new interest in considering a range of regulatory options is not breaking down along conventional left/right lines. How should we think about these larger philosophical questions? Featuring: Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenker LLCGenevieve Lakier, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law SchoolRandy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georget

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was used in 2017 to overturn 15 rules issued near the end of the Obama administration. The shift in political control in the White House and Congress this year set the stage for a possible repeat with respect to Trump administration rules. The CRA’s period for expedited congressional procedures (free of the Senate filibuster) has now expired for late Trump era regulations, and Congress overturned only three such rules. On June 24, Congress finished action to repeal the EEOC conciliation rule and the OCC (Comptroller) true lender rule, and it took final action to repeal the EPA methane rule the following day. President Biden has since signed all three resolutions, making them law.This latest cycle of CRA actions merit general exploration as well as consideration of the specific rules at issue. What process did Congress use to disapprove the three rules? Why did it use the CRA relatively sparingly this year, and what will the impact be of the three disapprovals? The answers to

On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez. In this case, a class of plaintiffs sued the credit reporting company TransUnion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the process Transunion used to flag consumer credit worthiness accounts—running consumers names against the U.S. Treasury Departments’ Office of Foreign Assets Control database of terrorists, traffickers, and other criminals and flagging those names that matched database listed names—resulted in harm to the plaintiffs where the match was only a coincidence.Although the initial class contained 8,185 members, only 1,853 class members incurred harm since Transunion only conveyed credit reports flags for that subset to third parties during the relevant period.The District Court ruled the whole 8,185 member class had standing to sue. The Supreme Court reversed on the standing issue, ruling that the 6,332 class members whose information had not been conveyed to third parties during th

On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar Penneast Pipeline Co., exercising federal eminent domain authority under the Natural Gas Act, from suing the State of New Jersey to acquire state-owned property to construct a natural gas pipeline. The Supreme Court rejected New Jersey’s arguments that the federal eminent domain power had not been properly delegated to PennEast, and even if the authorization were appropriate, the State’s sovereign immunity precluded this federal court suit. The federal government has always had the supreme power to condemn state property,the Court ruled, and the tradition of delegating this power to build public infrastructure goes back to the days of the nation’s founding. Penneast was represented by former Solicitor General, Paul Clement.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Barrett

What should the Supreme Court do when it finds one provision of a statute unconstitutional? There is a significant split between current Justices on the question where Congress has not provided express instructions on severance within the statute. Several believe the Court should save the rest of the statute, while others have expressed skepticism towards this practice.This distinguished panel will explore the foundations of the severability doctrine and the authority of Article III judges in such cases. Panelists will offer their differing views of severability and discuss where the doctrine may be headed.Featuring:Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonErin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law CenterProf. Kevin C. Walsh, Assistant Professor, University of Richmond School of LawModerator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on part

On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona v. Democratic National Convention. The DNC sued the state of Arizona arguing that two of the State’s election procedures—refusing to count ballots that were incorrectly cast out of precinct and forbidding most third parties from collecting vote-by-mail ballots for delivery—had a disparate impact on racial minority voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The DNC also alleged that the ballot-collection measure was enacted with discriminatory intent.Although the District Court found no violation of the Voting Rights Act and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed finding disparate impact and that the District Court had clearly erred in finding no discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s decision, holding 6-3 that Arizona’s voting rules did not violate Section 2 of the Votin

Several states are considering how to regulate the content moderation practices of social media and other tech platforms. Some are focused primarily on protecting a wider range of expressible user viewpoints, while other states are concerned with strengthening incentives on platforms to engage in more aggressive moderation of potentially harmful speech. Some states are also pursuing antitrust enforcement actions against some tech platforms. Such state level regulation of national – even global – platforms, raises the prospect of a patchwork of competing state regulatory frameworks. States have their own antitrust statutes that can differ from federal standards, and historically have had authority to regulate and set boundaries for material that cannot be published, such as libel, and content harmful to minors. How should we think about state regulatory efforts when applied to technology platforms - is regulatory federalism likely to be beneficial, or should federal law preempt such efforts? W

On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 decision in Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe et al and the consolidated case of Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I. In this case, six people from Mali who had been trafficked as child slaves onto cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast sued under the Alien Tort Statute, arguing that since the American companies Nestle and Cargill provided financial and technical support to those farms, they should be liable for aiding and abetting human trafficking. The Ninth Circuit had reversed the District Court, finding that the respondents had adequately pled a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute because the corporate decisions driving contracting with the Ivory Coast farms originated in the United States. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit holding that the presumption against extraterritoriality required plaintiffs to establish relevant conduct in the United States and that general corporate activity like decision making was insufficient.Justice Thomas announced the judgment

On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General of California. California state law required charitable organizations soliciting donors in the state to register with the California Attorney General. To file, charities had to submit their IRS Form 990 along with all Schedules including Schedule B which discloses donor names and information.Two conservative organizations refused to submit Schedule B and ultimately sued arguing that the compelled disclosure of their donor lists violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association. Disclosure would make their donors less likely to donate or associate with the charities of their choice.The case went through multiple appeals to the Ninth Circuit finally arriving in the Supreme Court, which cited NAACP v. Alabama, clarified the applicable exacting scrutiny standard, and held California’s Schedule B disclosure requirement facially unconstitutional.Joining us to discuss is Mr.

On June 23, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court in Collins v. Yellen held 7-2 that 1) because the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not exceed its authority under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the anti-injunction provisions of the Recovery Act bar the statutory claim brought by shareholders of Fanne Mae and Freddie Mac; and 2) the Recovery Act’s structure violates the separation of powers.Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch joined the opinion as to all but Part III–C, Justices Kagan and Breyer joined as to all but Part III–B, and Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts I, II, and III–C. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined as to Part II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined.Featuring: Jason Levine, Par

American politics grows embittered because it is increasingly torn between two rival constitutions, two opposed cultures, two contrary ways of life. American conservatives rally around the founders’ Constitution, as amended and as grounded in the natural and divine rights and duties of the Declaration of Independence. American liberals herald their “living Constitution,” a term that implies that the original is dead or superseded, and that the fundamental political imperative is constant change or transformation (as President Obama called it) toward a more and more perfect social democracy ruled by a Woke elite.Crisis of the Two Constitutions details how we got to and what is at stake in our increasingly divided America. It takes controversial stands on matters political and scholarly, describing the political genius of America’s founders and their efforts to shape future generations through a constitutional culture that included immigration, citizenship, and educational policies. Then it turns to the attempt