Teleforum

The Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas on June 7, 2021. Jose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States illegally in 1997. Four years later, he applied for and was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) then in 2014, Sanchez applied for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Sanchez’ LPR application, finding him ineligible based on his illegal entry—so Sanchez sued in District Court. The court sided with Sanchez, holding that the grant of TPS automatically made Sanchez eligible for LPR consideration.On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding Sanchez ineligible for LPR, based on his illegal entry, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found that eligibility for LPR status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 requires “admission” defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.&rdqu

Three of the nation's leading scholars on constitutional law and executive power — Michael McConnell, Sai Prakash, and John Yoo — join us to discuss the true extent of executive power, and their new books on the subject.The most recent book, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution by Prof. McConnell, was reviewed in the pages of the Federalist Society Review by John Yoo. Before that, Profs. Prakash and Yoo joined the Federalist Society's Teleforum to debate the Constitution's grant of presidential power and whether (or to what extent) President Trump upheld that grant. The discussion continues with the new voice of former federal judge and distinguished originalist scholar Michael McConnell.Featuring:-- Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution-- Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research

On June 17, 2021, the US Supreme Court unanimously decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for petitioners. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court in an opinion joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, explained that the city violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause when it refused to contract with Catholic Social Services for foster-care services unless CSS agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Kavanaugh joined and Justice Breyer joined as to all but the first paragraph. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Featuring: Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no positio

The Biden Administration recently made headlines by announcing a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for the U.S. of 50% by 2030 (relative to 2005 levels) when hosting a climate summit with world leaders. Indeed, in an executive order (Jan. 27, 2021), President Biden stated that “[i]t is the policy of my Administration that climate considerations shall be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security.” China, on the other hand, is not only the world’s largest carbon emitter, but also considered by many to be a geopolitical rival to the U.S. It has gained prestige for committing to reaching net zero emissions by 2060, even while its emissions continue to increase significantly in the present. The teleforum will discuss the respective aspirational goals and current efforts of China and the U.S. with regard to climate change mitigation, as well as the legal frameworks within which each government attempts to implement policy. It will then discuss the impact of

On June 14, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Terry v. United States. Petitioner Tarahrick Terry plead guilty to possession of crack cocaine in 2008. Following the passage of the First Step Act in 2018, petitioner requested resentencing. The First Step Act makes the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act’s downward sentence modification for certain crack cocaine convictions retroactive. The Court found that since Terry’s initial crack cocaine conviction did not trigger a mandatory minimum, it was not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. As a result, the First Step Act does not apply and Terry’s request for retroactive resentencing was properly denied. Featuring: Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute 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 no

On June 16, 2021, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "Talks with Authors: Religious Liberty in Crisis."In his new book Religious Liberty in Crisis: Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty, former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr explores the contemporary relationship between government, constitutional law, and religious freedom. Judge Starr is joined by Professor Robert P. George, Princeton's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, to discuss the book and related matters. Featuring:-- Hon. Kenneth W. Starr, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (1983-1989); U.S. Solicitor General (1989-1993)-- Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence; Director, James Madison Program, Princeton University

On June 16, 2021, The Federalist Society's Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted a teleforum on "Certiorari and Stinson Deference."The U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled a retreat from deference to agency guidance in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Court narrowed judicial deference available to agencies construing their own ambiguous regulations. But what about judicial deference to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency housed in “within the Judicial Branch,” and which Justice Scalia derided as a “junior varsity Congress,” making policy choices that should be committed to the legislature? In Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to the commentary the Sentencing Commission issued construing their formally adopted Sentencing Guidelines, unless they are “inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of,” the relevant Guideline. The Stinson Court required such deference even if the Commission’s interpretati

On June 17, 2021, The Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a teleforum exploring the "Department of Justice: Executive Supervision or Independence?".With the change in presidential administration, some critics and scholars have argued that a need for independence at agencies like the Department of Justice should be reconsidered. To whom is the Department of Justice accountable? Whose interests does it represent? When a change in executive leadership occurs, should the policies at agencies like DOJ be subject to change as well? And, if so, how far does that latitude extend—to prosecutorial policies, to enforcement discretion, to the questions of constitutional and statutory and criminal law interpretation delegated for resolution to DOJ? This distinguished panel discussion will address these issues and the core question of which governmental actors our constitutional system has charged with directing the arc of the use of that authority.Featuring:-- Bob Bauer, Profe

This session will cover changes – both observed to-date and anticipated – by OFCCP in the Biden administration. We will discuss the early initiatives the Biden administration has introduced, including a webpage for the Affirmative Action Verification Initiative that may substantially increase compliance obligations. Other topics will include OFCCP’s anticipated policy interests, areas of significant legal risk including compensation analysis, recent trends and expectations for audits, and the intersectionality of diversity equity and inclusion with OFCCP compliance.Featuring:-- Lauren B. Hicks, Of Counsel, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Charles Borden had been convicted three times of aggravated assault under Tennessee law. Federal law prohibits possession of firearms by convicted felons, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for those with three prior convictions of violent felonies. Two of Borden's convictions were under a subsection of Tennessee's aggravated assault law covering intentional or knowing violations, and one was under a subsection covering reckless violations. Borden was sentenced to the mandatory minimum over his objection that reckless aggravated assault is not a "violent felony" within the meaning of the ACCA.The federal courts of appeals were divided on the question of whether crimes with a reckless mens rea were included within the particular clause of the ACCA invoked in this case. That clause includes convictions of a crime which "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another."The Supreme Court reversed in

This panel addressed the textual questions of §230: is the statute correctly understood to permit discretionary content moderation on the part of social media platforms and other supporting tech entities, or does the text provide for a more limited range of moderation policies? Although several circuit courts have adopted a more expansive interpretation of the statutory protections, Justice Thomas has recently questioned whether the prevailing application is consistent with the text. Does viewpoint discrimination fall within the scope of §230 protection? Are decisions to ban individuals from participating on a platform covered by the statutory protections? To what extent does the statute preclude state regulatory initiatives to protect speech by platform users?Featuring: Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; President, New Civil Liberties AllianceEugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawMary Anne Franks, Profes

On June 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group sponsored a teleforum to discuss "Closing the Digital Divide: The Future of Broadband Access."The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed attention to closing the country’s digital divide. In response, Congress and the White House have made broadband infrastructure a top priority, with several different infrastructure proposals on the table. This massive investment to connect all Americans will require significant funding. This event, featuring FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, will explore the different options available, potential roadblocks, and the continued importance of unleashing private sector investment in today’s broadband networks. Featuring:-- Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission-- Moderator: Randolph J. May, President, Free State Foundation

Section 230 has been understood to shield internet platforms from liability for content posted by users, and also to protect the platforms’ discretion in removing “objectionable” content. But policy makers have recently taken a stronger interest in attempting to influence tech companies’ moderation policies. Some have argued the policies are too restrictive and unduly limit the scope of legitimate public debate in what has become something of a high-tech public square. Other policy makers have argued the platforms need to more aggressively target “hate speech,” online harassment, and other forms of objectionable content. And against that background, states are adopting and considering legislation to limit the scope of permissible content moderation to preclude viewpoint discrimination. Some have suggested that the §230 protection, in combination with political pressure, create First Amendment state action problems for content moderation. Others argue that state eff

On May 27, 2021, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Vitolo v. Guzman. Over a dissent written by Judge Donald, the Court held that the Small Business Act of the American Rescue Plan Act created unconstitutional racial, ethnic, and gender-based priority preferences in distributing covid-relief grants to small businesses. Upon finding the plaintiffs would win on their constitutional claim, the Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction pending appeal.Joining us to discuss is Mr. Daniel Lennington, the attorney who represented Mr. Vitolo before the Sixth Circuit.Featuring: -- Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

On June 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. United States. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that an individual exceeds authorized access when he accesses a computer with authorization but obtains information in a place on the computer off-limits to him. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined.Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District Joseph DeMarco joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.Featuring:Joseph DeMarco, Partner, DeMarco Law PLLC* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

This teleforum will examine the president's use of travel bans during the SARS-2 pandemic Two of the nation's top experts in immigration law--Professor Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and Chris Hajec of the Immigration Reform Law Institute--will present their views of the law and policy in this area while also taking questions from the audience.Featuring:-- Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute-- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Breyer that could have far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Cooley that a tribal police officer does have authority to temporarily detain a non-Indian where the officer has probable cause of a violation of state or federal law. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Joining us to discuss are Indian Law experts AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle. Featuring: Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig ---To register, click the link above.

On May 27, the Supreme Court issued its 9-0 decision in San Antonio, TX v. Hotels.com holding that district courts lack the discretion to deny or reduce Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 appellate costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.Joining us to discuss is Associate Professor of Law and Interim Dean Charles Campbell of Faulkner University Jones School of Law. Featuring:-- Charles Campbell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law

Few fields are more in need of fresh thinking than administrative law. The author of Administrative Law Theory and Fundamentals: An Integrated Approach, a new casebook recently published by Foundation Press, seeks to provide such thinking. The new casebook proposes a theory of administrative power that better explains constitutional text and structure, as well as historical and modern practice, than competing accounts. It argues that there are “exclusive” powers that only Congress, the President, and the courts can respectively exercise, but also “nonexclusive” powers that can be exercised by more than one branch. This theory of “nonexclusive powers” allows students and scholars of administrative law to make more sense of—or better critiques of—administrative concepts such as delegation, quasi-powers, judicial deference, agency adjudications, the chameleon-like quality of government power, and of the separation of powers more broadly. Please join Professor Ilan Wurman, the casebook’s author, and Professor Ric

First proposed in 1923 – yes, nearly one hundred years ago - the Equal Rights Amendment was finally passed by the U.S. Congress nearly 50 years later, in 1972, with a seven-year deadline for its ratification. With the deadline approaching, but the requisite 38 states not having voted to ratify, Congress approved, and President Carter signed, a three-year extension, to 1982.Several states and the U.S. Congress are now revisiting the ERA, raising a variety of issues:Whether it is constitutionally possible at this point to extend or eliminate the deadline for ratification of the 1972 ERA; the effectiveness (or not) of five states’ revocations of their votes to ratify; the effectiveness (or not) of the three states’ ratifications that came more than 35 years after the extended deadline;The pros and cons and wisdom (or not) and necessity (or not) and ramifications of amending the United States Constitution with the ERA.These and related matters will be discussed by Rep. Steven Andersson, founder