Teleforum

On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra. The Court will address what level of scrutiny is necessary for a government to require the disclosure of donor lists, a disclosure which Petitioners and others argue chills the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment and is at odds with the holding in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson.Joining us to discuss is Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP and the author of an amicus brief in the consolidated cases.Featuring: -- Erik Jaffe, Partner at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

On April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association.In this litigation, three refineries are challenging the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, which limits the availability of an EPA hardship exemption under the Renewable Fuel Standard of the Clean Air Act to those small refineries that can show “disproportionate economic hardship” and who have applied for an exemption for all preceding years. While the Tenth Circuit relies on the textual structure of the RFS, the refineries argue the Court’s interpretation belies the purpose of the exemption which Congress stated should be available for application “at any time.”The Supreme Court takes up a question of statutory interpretation deciding whether a small refinery must not only show “disproportionate economic hardship,” but also receive continuous uninterrupted hardship exemptions to qualify for an additional RFS hardship exemption. Featu

On April 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities, & Antitrust Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "The Antitrust Paradox: A Conversation with Sen. Mike Lee and Robert Bork, Jr." Judge Robert H. Bork's famous work, The Antitrust Paradox, has been republished so that the new generation of general practitioners and antitrust thinkers alike can bring his work to bear on their own. Senator Mike Lee, who wrote the republished edition's foreword, and Robert Bork, Jr., discussed the book, the present state of antitrust issues, and more.Featuring:Robert H. Bork, Jr., President, The Bork Foundation; President, Antitrust Education ProjectSen. Mike Lee, United States Senate, UtahModerator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * 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 April 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a teleforum titled "Revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan." The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan came under scrutiny in a recent dissent by Judge Silberman of the DC Court of Appeals. Noted First Amendment scholars Glenn Reynolds and Floyd Adams weighed in on the discussion addressing whether or not the nearly sixty-year-old case should be revisited, and the impact of First Amendment driven defamation laws in the journalistic context and free public discourse. Featuring: Prof. Glenn Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of LawFloyd Abrams, Senior Counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLPModerator: Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP* * * * * 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 mid-March 2021, the state of Ohio's attorney general filed suit against Janet Yellen and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, challenging a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act that involves federal and state tax policies. Benjamin Flowers, Ohio's solicitor general, joins us to give a litigation update, review the background of the case, and more. Featuring: -- Benjamin Flowers, Solicitor General, Ohio-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The case involves the issue of whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.Supreme Court practice expert Daniel Ortiz joins us to discuss the case and review the oral arguments. Featuring: Prof. Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law

On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court decided AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Breyer explained how Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not authorize the FTC to seek, or a court to award, monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. A panel of experts will discuss the ruling and its implications.Featuring: -- Alden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; former General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission-- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom-- Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts; former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission-- Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom

One year ago, the United States Department of Justice announced a series of indictments against major figures of the Venezuelan regime lead by Nicolas Maduro, including of Mr. Maduro himself. One significant case involves a Colombian businessman, Alex Saab, who has been described in the press as “Maduro’s financier.” Just two weeks ago, a court in Cape Verde, West Africa, ordered Mr. Saab to be extradited to the United States, just as another regional court ordered that he be freed. He has resisted extradition based on an appointment by the Venezuelan government as a “diplomat” on a “humanitarian mission” to Iran.This Teleforum will give listeners an update on where these cases stand as well as background on the nuances of prosecuting them. The speakers include Ryan Berg, a regional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael Nadler, a partner with the firm SFS Law in Miami, Florida, and former Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and who served as lead counsel

The national conversation over transgender students’ inclusion in student athletics and school facilities has received unparalleled levels of attention in the past weeks. Some transgender advocates argue affording equal rights to transgender students requires forcing public schools to allow transgender students access to the sports team, the locker room, and the bathroom that matches the gender the trans student identifies with. Others oppose such mandatory access, arguing that treating transgender boys who identify as girls the same as biological girls undermines hard-fought women’s gains in developing women’s sports and safety-protections.Join us for a discussion between Shannon Minter, transgender rights advocate and Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lauren Adams, noted feminist advocate and Legal Counsel at Women’s Liberation Front. Featuring: Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian RightsLauren Adams, Legal Counsel, Women's Liberati

On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and the consolidated case of Alaska Native Village Corporation Association v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation. In these cases, the Court has the opportunity to consider whether certain Alaskan villages and corporations fall within the definition of “Indian tribes” for purposes of the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Featuring: Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLPJennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig 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.

On April 20, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of United States v. Gary. In this case, defendant Gary pled guilty in federal court to two counts of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) then appealed his sentence. During the interim following his appeal, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States and held that for conviction under 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), the United States must prove both (1) knowing possession of the firearm and (2) knowledge of felon-status. Gary supplemented his appeal with the Rehaif decision, arguing he had not been informed of the knowing-felon-status element of the crime when he pled guilty. The Ninth Circuit found the district court’s omission of the knowing-felon-status element was plain error, vacated Gary’s conviction, and remanded even though Gary did not show he would not have taken the plea but for the district court’s omission. The Supreme Court will decide whether Gary is automatically

On April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com. In this case, the Court granted certiorari on the question whether the Fifth Circuit alone among all its sister circuits correctly held that District Courts have no discretion to deny or reduce appellate costs deemed taxable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e). Featuring: -- Dean Charles Campbell, Associate Professor of Law, Interim Dean, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law

On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Sanchez v. Mayorkas. The Court will decide whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under the Immigration and Nationality Act satisfies the “admission” requirement laid out in section 1255(a) necessary for a grant of Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status. In taking this case, the Court has the chance to resolve a circuit split: given the recent Third Circuit decision underlying this petition for cert, both the Third and Eleventh Circuits do not allow TPS admission to qualify for LPR admission, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits allow LPR admission to qualify for TPS status. Featuring: Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, Writer, Advocate, and Former United States Ambassador to East Timor 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 cal

On April 5, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Google v. Oracle. In a 6-2 decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that Google's use of a Java program constituted "fair use" under federal copyright law. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. A panel of experts joins us to discuss the case, their differing views on the ruling, and its implications for copyright and intellectual property law.Featuring: Prof. Michael Risch, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of LawProf. Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of LawModerator: Prof. Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor, Senior Scholar and Director of Copyright Research and Policy, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University---This Zoom panel is open to public registration. See the link above.

Always on the lookout for new sources of federal revenue, some lawmakers are now drawn to the prospect of taxing wealth. In 2020, Sen. Sanders proposed a “Make Billionaires Pay Act,” described briefly here. In her Presidential campaign, Sen. Warren also proposed a tax on wealth. Now as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Warren, along with Sen. Sanders and others, have proposed an “Ultra-Millionaire Tax.” Because Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States,” it took the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified in 1913, to enable Congress to tax incomes. Does the Constitution permit Congress to tax wealth? With co-author Prof. John R. Brooks, Prof. David Gamage wrote Why A Wealth Tax Is Definitely Constitutional. In The Warren Wealth Tax: A Response To Professor Bruce Ackerman, Prof. Jonathan Turley lays out some of the arguments to the contrary. In this virtual discussion, Profs. Turley and Gamage w

In his new book, The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory: Why We Need the Framers, historian Donald Drakeman argues that in order to properly interpret the Constitution, one must consider the will of the lawmakers—in this case, those founding fathers who framed the charter—and, more specifically, their decisions about both the ends and the means of the provisions they designed. In the face of ascendant "public meaning" originalism, this book seeks to revive the importance of the framers' intent in constitutional theory and interpretation.Joining Mr. Drakeman to review his new book are two distinguished constitutional theorists, Professors Lawrence Solum of the University of Virginia and Keith Whittington of Princeton. All three will offer their views on the matters at hand in a discussion moderated by Judge Britt Grant of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.Featuring: Donald L. Drakeman, Distinguished Research Professor, Program in Constitutional Studies, University of Notre DameProf. Lawrence B. S

On April 1, the Supreme Court ruled on an original jurisdiction dispute in Florida v. Georgia. Justice Barrett authored the Court's unanimous decision, holding that Florida did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the collapse of Florida’s downstream oyster fisheries was caused by Georgia’s alleged overconsumption of water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. The Court found that other factors besides Georgia’s upstream water consumption contributed to the collapse including overharvesting, a severe drought, and changing rainfall, so Florida could not successfully establish causation. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the report of the Special Master and took his recommendation to dismiss the case. Featuring:Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation 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 c

On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Facebook in Facebook v. Duguid. Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that a device must have the capacity to store or produce a telephone number using a number generator. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.Telecommunications law experts Scott Delacourt and Daniel Lyons discuss the ruling and implications.Featuring: -- Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley-- Prof. Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law, Boston College School of Law-- Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Attorney Advisor, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project. Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Kavanaugh explained that the FCC's 2017 decision to modify its media-ownership rules was not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The distinguished panel that joined us to discuss oral arguments is returning to discuss the ruling and its implications. Featuring: Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law; former General Counsel, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute; former Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionMr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; former General Counsel, Federal Communications CommissionModerator: Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group---This Zoo

American Bar Association Model Rule 8.4(g) defines professional misconduct in relevant part as “conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Because the 8.4(g) professional misconduct definition is broad and applies to a wide swath of undefined activity, the model rule has prompted spirited debate in light of the serious competing interests implicated. Join us for a discussion of contrasting views from Professor Josh Blackman and Mr. Robert Weiner. Featuring: -- Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston-- Robert Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP -- Moderator: Kim Colby, Director of the Center of Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society