Teleforum

In a decision issued on March 26, 2021, the Sixth Circuit held Professor Nicholas Meriwether, a long-time philosophy professor at Shawnee State and a devout Christian, had plausibly alleged Shawnee State violated his First Amendment Speech and Free Exercise rights by subjecting him to discipline over use of pronouns. On the Speech claim: the Sixth Circuit found the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Cebalos did not apply to bar Meriwether’s claim since the Court had expressly withheld applying the precedent to “a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.” On the Free Exercise claim: based on the hostility to religion demonstrated by Shawnee State officials, the Sixth Circuit found strict scrutiny under Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah rather than rational basis under Employment Division v. Smith applied, so Meriwether had successfully established a Free Exercise claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Joining us to discuss the implications of the decision for academic freedom, f

The For the People Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019 as H.R. 1, the symbolic designation marking it as the top priority of the new Democratic House majority. Described by its author, Representative John Sarbanes, as addressing “voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government,” the 570 page bill passed the House later that year, but was never voted on in the Republican-controlled Senate. The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.The Ho

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, petitioning Asian-American students argued that Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies actively discriminated against them on the basis of race in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed, triggering SFFA’s pending petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari. If the Court accepts cert, the case will present it with the chance to address the legality of race-based admissions policies for the fifth time in as many decades. Should and will the Court take the case? Is this an opportunity for a long-overdue correction of judicial error or a project doomed to fail? And what exactly does the trove of information from the record below mean for the Court’s decision, for admissions departments elsewhere, and for applicants?Featuring:-- Anna Ivey, Founder, Anna Ivey Consulting-- Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm-- Moderator: Dan Morenoff, Exe

In March 2021, the Biden Administration unveiled its infrastructure plan, known as the American Jobs Act. An important part of the plan is technology, and a focus point is improving the nation's broadband network. A panel of experts joins us to discuss the plan and its implications.Featuring: Prof. Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolTony Clark, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLPKate O’Connor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and CommerceModerator: Hon. David Redl, Founder and CEO, Salt Point Strategies LLC and Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Services, a case involving the Anti-Injunction Act and tax penalties. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for the Court and Justices Sotomayor and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions.Joining us to discuss the decision and its implications are several experts in the field. Featuring: Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence, University of Texas at Austin School of LawKristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In March 2021, a futures exchange, ErisX, voluntarily withdrew an application with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC," the main derivatives regulator) to list a futures contract tied to events in NFL games such as point spread and total points. It had become clear that the CFTC was going to reject it as a "prohibited event contract." The issue likely would have faded away except that one of the CFTC's five commissioners, Brian Quintenz, released a statement "blowing the whistle" on the non-public agency process and questioning the CFTC's authority. Join Commissioner Quintenz for a discussion. Featuring:-- Hon. Brian D. Quintenz, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission-- Moderator: Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Due to technical difficulties, this teleforum has been rescheduled for Friday, May 21 at 1:30 PM ET.On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Edwards v. Vannoy, which focused on whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applied retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this decision and its implications. Featuring: Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a membe

Nearly two dozen lawsuits against energy manufacturers seeking state tort damages over climate change have been filed in state courts. The defendants removed the cases to federal courts because the subject matter of the litigation involves exclusively federal issues, namely national energy policy over the worldwide uses of fossil fuels.On May 17, 2021, The Supreme Court released its decision in one of the cases, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. By a vote of 7-1, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Sotomayor, who dissented, and Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Phil Goldberg and Karen Harned join us to discuss this decision and its implications. Featuring: -- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers

On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in Caniglia v. Strom, which focused on whether the community-caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extended to the home. By a vote of 9-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is vacated and the case remanded. Although Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court was unanimous, The Chief Justice filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Breyer. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed concurring opinions. Our two experts join us to offer commentary on this decision. Featuring: Matt Cavedon, Criminal Defense Attorney, Gainesville, GARobert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice 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 cont

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a moratorium on evictions nationwide on September 4, 2020 and coupled the moratorium with federal criminal penalties for those landlords who seek relief from state courts. In the first case filed against the moratorium, the New Civil Liberties Alliance took on the representation of several housing providers, including Rick Brown, and the National Apartment Association. In Brown v. Becerra, NCLA challenged the CDC’s moratorium on both statutory and U.S. Constitutional grounds in the Northern District of Georgia. A preliminary injunction in the case is now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit with oral argument scheduled for May 14, 2021. Joining us to discuss the Brown v. Becerra argument and the status of the case to date is NCLA attorney Caleb Kruckenberg.Featuring:-- Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance -- Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On April 22, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Jones v. Mississippi. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Mississippi was affirmed. The case concerns a Mississippi statute that allows imposition of a life without parole sentence, and a defendant who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offense. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan. Marc Levin joins us to discuss the decision and its implications. Featuring: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime 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

A biracial Wisconsin couple—Konkanok Rabieba and Richard Freihoefer—is suing the state of Wisconsin over its Minority Grant Program: a state scholarship program which awards education grants to certain minorities but not to others or to whites. Although the plaintiffs’ son is half Thai, he is ineligible to apply for the Program because applications are only accepted from persons who are black, Hispanic, American Indian, or “admitted to the United States after December 31, 1975, and who either is a former citizen of Laos, Vietnam or Cambodia or whose ancestor was or is a citizen of Laos, Vietnam or Cambodia.” Rabieba and Freihoefer allege that administration of the program on this basis unconstitutionally discriminates against non-minorities and minorities not included in the program's defined class on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Wisconsin state constitution. Featuring: -- Rick M. Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty

Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham is a pending petition before the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves many important legal issues, specifically: (1) whether a court must assess if consolidating multiple plaintiffs for a single trial violates Due Process, or whether it can presume that jury instructions always cure both jury confusion and prejudice to the defendant; (2) whether a punitive-damages award violates Due Process when it far exceeds a substantial compensatory-damages award, and whether the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages for jointly and severally liable defendants is calculated by assuming that each defendant will pay the entire compensatory award; and (3) whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for specific personal jurisdiction can be met by merely showing a “link” in the chain of causation, as the Court of Appeals of Missouri held, or whether a heightened showing of relatedness is required, as the Ford Motor Company in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court has a

It is hard to find a discussion of artificial intelligence these days that does not include concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems' potential bias against racial minorities and other identity groups. Facial recognition, lending, and bail determinations are just a few of the domains in which this issue arises. Laws are being proposed and even enacted to address these concerns. But is this problem properly understood? If it's real, do we need new laws beyond those anti-discrimination laws that already govern human decision makers, hiring exams, and the like?Unlike some humans, AI models don't have malevolent biases or an intention to discriminate. Are they superior to human decision-making in that sense? Nonetheless, it is well established that AI systems can have a disparate impact on various identity groups. Because AI learns by detecting correlations and other patterns in a real world dataset, are disparate impacts inevitable, short of requiring AI systems to produce proportionate results? Would

Thirteen years ago, Tarahrick Terry was charged with possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of cocaine base otherwise known as crack cocaine. He pled guilty and was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. 842(b)(1)(C) which set a range of 0-30 years. Terry received a sixteen-year term of imprisonment followed by six months of supervised release. Congress passed comprehensive criminal justice reform twice in the years following: the Fair Sentencing Act (2010) and the First Step Act (2018) which modified the application of the Fair Sentencing Act. Terry appealed his sentence, arguing his offense was a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act. The district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.On May 4, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument taking up the question whether Terry’s offense was a “covered offense” under Section 404 under the First Step Act and whether he is entitled to relief.Featuring:Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charl

Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, or “TJ,” in Fairfax County, Virginia, is the nation’s top-ranked public high school. It’s also over 70% Asian-American. Until last fall, admission to TJ rested largely on a student’s performance on a race-blind standardized admissions test. Vocally displeased that the demographics of TJ’s student body do not match the demographics of its school district as a whole, the Fairfax County school board recently eliminated the standardized admissions test and instituted a new admissions system which the Plaintiff, Coalition for TJ, believes is designed to achieve the school board’s racial balancing goals. Under the new system, the Coalition for TJ projects that Asian-American enrollment—and only Asian-American enrollment—in the incoming TJ freshman class will drop by over 40%. Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, last month the Coalition for TJ filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

On April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of PennEast Pipeline LLC v. New Jersey. In this case, the Court will address the conflict between state sovereign immunity secured to the states by the Eleventh Amendment and the Federal Natural Gas Act which authorizes certain private actors to exercise Federal eminent domain power. In this case, PennEast Pipeline used the Act to take forty-two New Jersey properties in order to build a pipeline. New Jersey fought the taking, arguing that PennEast was not appropriately authorized under the Act and even if the authorization were appropriate, sovereign immunity applied.The District Court sided with PennEast, finding the exercise of eminent domain was authorized. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that even though the authorization under the Act was appropriate, the Act does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court takes up the question whether the Natural Gas Act does delegate federal eminent domain power and if so, w

On April 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul. Writing for the unanimous Court and in reversing the lower court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.Thomas Berry, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of petitioners, joins us to discuss the ruling and its implicationsFeaturing:Thomas Berry, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Managing Editor, Cato Supreme Court Review 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 an

On April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which presents the question whether, under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., public high schools may discipline students for off-campus speech. B.L. was a high-school sophomore who had tried out unsuccessfully for the varsity cheerleading team, but was selected for the J.V. team instead. Upset, she Snapchatted a photo of herself raising her middle fingers and captioned the photo "F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything." The school determined that her Snapchat violated school rules, and removed her from the J.V. team. Her parents sued on her behalf, claiming that the removal violated her First Amendment rights. Both the District Court and the Third Circuit ruled in B.L.'s favor.Joining us to discuss is Professor Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School. Featuring: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Teleforum calls are open

On April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago. Defendant Palomar-Santiago lost his permanent resident status in 1991 after a California felony DUI conviction. He was deported and subsequently reentered the country without authorization. In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit held that felony DUI was not a crime of violence necessitating the deportation of a permanent resident-defendant. Now Palomar-Santiago challenges his current 8 U.S.C. 1326 illegal reentry indictment using Ninth Circuit precedent that his initial removal was fundamentally unfair since the crime underlying his deportation was improperly categorized.The District Court agreed with Palomar-Santiago and the Ninth Circuit affirmed without addressing the merits of the government’s argument: that the Ninth Circuit's decision redefining felony DUI was wrongly decided.The Supreme Court will address the question whether a defendant who was removed from the United States is automatically enti