Teleforum

Almost every religious institution closed its doors in mid-March in response to requests and then order from various levels of government in the name of slowing or stopping the spread of COVID-19. Many religious institutions responded to the shutdowns with ingenuity by finding ways to meet and still remain in compliance with the CDC’s recommendations of physical distancing and limits on meeting sizes. One of those solutions – drive-in services – became the target of growing government restrictions in parts of the country. Matt Martens and Hiram Sasser will discuss what is a drive-in religious service and the constitutionality of prohibiting such services during the current pandemic. Featuring: -- Matthew T. Martens, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP-- Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Today the Supreme Court released the decision in United States v. Sineneng-Smith. By a vote of 9-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Although every member of the Court joined Justice Ginsburg's opinion, Justice Thomas also issued a concurring opinion indicating his doubt about the validity of the overbreadth doctrine. Join us today as Brian Fish discusses the decision in this case. Featuring: -- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

The oral argument for this case will be held on May 6, 2020. At issue are: (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.Featuring: -- Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School

In 2017, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced her formal request to open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber denied the request, but after the prosecutor appealed, on March 5, 2020, the ICC Appeals Chamber authorized her to proceed with the investigation. This means that, in the near future, the ICC could issue warrants seeking the arrest of current and former U.S. officials, government employees, and military personnel—despite the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC, has already investigated the alleged crimes, and rejects the ICC’s claims of jurisdiction over U.S. persons and actions. What are the ICC's authorities under international law; is the ICC on solid ground? Will this development lead the U.S. to take new steps to protect Americans? Featuring: -- Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Cente

It has long been a staple of trademark law that one cannot receive a registered trademark for a generic term - for instance a trademark for "socks" would be useless because it indicates the type of goods being sold, not the source of those goods. This doctrine has been generally applied to generic terms with a top level domain appended - so socks.com would be equally generic and not capable of being registered for federal trademark protection. However, this is being challenged by the website booking.com, which offers travel booking services. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected their trademark application for "booking.com," saying it is generic, but the District Court reversed, finding "booking.com" descriptive, not generic, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. This question now finds itself before the Supreme Court, to determine whether a domain name that is a generic term plus a top level domain can be validly registered for trademark protection.Featuring:-- Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer, III, Partner, Mic

COVID-19 has changed life as we know it in innumerable ways. But what can we expect from the trial bar and in litigation generally? How will liability issues be sorted during and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? Further, who will decide? How can states and enforcement officials, businesses, and the legal community in general prepare for the coming wave of COVID-related litigation? Featuring: Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, State of GeorgiaHarold Kim, President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Questions of vertical and horizontal separation of powers have risen sharply during the coronavirus pandemic. Join us as John Malcolm and John Yoo discuss the balance of powers between the President, Congress, and state governors over lockdown and re-opening policy, testing, and medical expertise. They will also discuss the control over legal policy toward China and international organizations, recess appointments, and regulation of new technologies to combat the coronavirus.Featuring: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage FoundationProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Join us as Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, discusses the priorities and work of his office before, during and after COVID-19.Featuring: -- Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affair (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (Office of Management and Budget ). Executive Order 12291, issued by President Reagan in 1981, gave OIRA the responsibility to review the subject matter of government agency’ regulatory actions before publication in the Federal Register. The Office’s regulatory review persona was initially highly controversial, and it has been criticized throughout the past decades as being both too active and too passive, in regard to agency rules. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum critics fall on however, many believe OIRA is one of the most important, if relatively unknown, sources of government power in relation to the Executive branch and the Administrative state. Although OIRA has a number of specific statutory responsibilities (e.g., paperwork review and regulatory accounting), as a constituent of OMB it is part of the Executive Office of the President, and helps

In October of 2019, President Trump issued an executive order that imposed a series of restrictions and requirements on Federal agencies, and even included a requirement that agencies publish their guidance on the Internet. The purpose of the executive order was to promote transparency and democratic fairness in the administrative law process. This has led to a renewed debate over what the relationship should be between the executive branch and the administrative state, and has also led to some disagreement over whether the executive order represented any meaningful change from the status quo.Featuring: -- Hon. Steven Bradbury, General Counsel (and performing the functions and duties of Deputy Secretary), U.S. Department of Transportation-- John Walke, Director, Clean Air Project, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council-- Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at Geo

Article II of the United States Constitution provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This declarative statement gave rise to a theory of U.S. constitutional law that posits the President should have control over the entire executive branch. This theory has been given increasing attention with the rise of the administrative state. Some argue that the President does not have enough direct power over executive branch agencies, and that this is a violation of the clear statement in Article II Section I of the Constitution. Others argue that allowing the presidency more power would lead to a more dictatorial executive branch, and lead to a weakening of democracy. Proponents of Unitary Executive Theory respond to this concern by arguing that the absence of a unitary executive undermines democracy because without it democratically elected presidents lack the power to enact the policies that the American people elected them to enact, and instead can be stymi

What is the true role and authority of courts to nullify Federal law? During the Obama administration, district judges issued twenty nationwide injunctions, and during the Trump administration district judges have issued over forty of these injunctions. This has led to questions from both sides of the aisle as to what the proper extent and purpose of such nationwide injunctions should be. The founding fathers set forth a clear system of checks and balances, creating a balance of power and a series of checks to tyranny that could be used to safeguard liberty. But were district courts meant to have the power to stymie laws passed by the federal government? On the other hand, must litigants bring cases in multiple districts or circuits in order to fully prevail?Featuring: -- Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLP-- Hon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, Texas-- Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice

Section 230 of Communications Decency Act protects platforms from liability for the content produced by users. As social media platforms have evolved, concerns about free speech and platform liability have sparked debates among legislators regarding the best way to regulate social media companies. Some have questioned whether Section 230 is the best solution and have proposed Congressional enforcement of ‘platform neutrality.’ Others have argued that Section 230 is the best way to protect free speech. During this program, our experts will debate and discuss Section 230 and how Congress should approach regulation of social media companies.Featuring:-- Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC-- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute-- Josh Divine, Deputy Counsel, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) governs conduct of U.S. businesses and individuals conducting business abroad, penalizing them for paying bribes to foreign officials in business dealings. This teleforum will discuss recent developments in FCPA Enforcement (i.e., the new corporate enforcement policy/declinations, etc.), criticism of enforcement over the past few years, and offer predictions about what enforcement will look like during a second Trump term or a Biden presidency. Rod Rosenstein and Jonathan Su will offer commentary. Featuring: Rod J. Rosenstein, Partner, King & Spalding LLPJonathan C. Su, Partner, Latham & Watkins Moderator: Brian Lichter, Senior Director, Global Investigations, Cognizant This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

This teleforum will be a collaborative discussion for attorneys who represent financial institutions, in particular those organizations that are participating in paycheck protection program created by the CARES Act. Featuring: -- Jennifer R. McCain, Shareholder, Maynard Cooper Gale-- Christian Otteson, Partner, Shapiro Bieging Barber Otteson-- Jonathan Hightower, Partner, Fenimore, Kay, Harrison & Ford, LLP-- C. Wallace Dewitt, Adjunct Scholar, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives

In 1787, there existed a well-developed body of law on the subject of infectious diseases. Over the next 150 years, the nation dealt with new viral challenges as contagion(s) spread through wartime, imperial ventures in tropical regions, and the oft-referenced Spanish Flu. What was the legal framework in 1787, and which curtailments of civil liberties were palatable to the Founders? To what extent do local, state, and federal police powers overlap, and to what degree are those authorities empowered to restrict freedom of contract, travel, and the practice of religious communion? These and other topics will be discussed.Featuring: Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

In a decision in Ramos v. Louisiana handed down on April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a unanimous jury verdict in both federal and state courts. In reaching its decision, the Court fractured over the precedential weight it should accord its prior Sixth Amendment decisions, raising significant doctrinal questions about the role of stare decisis in constitutional cases. John C. Richter, former U.S. Attorney and acting head of the Criminal Division, will discuss the decision and its ramifications.Featuring: John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP 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.

As small businesses across the country grapple with the current and potential impacts associated with COVID-19, the National Federation of Independent Business continues to track the latest developments from healthcare officials, congress and the administration. Please join us to hear about how the organization is supporting small businesses during this time, and which government policies are positively and negatively affecting business operations today and down the road. Featuring: -- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

The Singapore Convention on Mediation was opened for signature on August 7, 2019, with the United States, China, and India among its first signatories. The Convention is “expected to bring certainty and stability to the international framework on mediation” by streamlining the process by which foreign jurisdictions will enforce settlement agreements resulting from mediation. This program will discuss the Convention’s potential impact on international commerce as well as its implementation in the United States.Featuring:-- Prof. Roger Alford, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School-- Gary Birnberg, JAMS Mediator and Arbitrator-- Mushegh Manukyan, Mediation Specialist, Office of the Ombudsman for UN Funds and Programmes, United Nations -- Harout J. Samra, Associate, DLA Piper

Almost exactly a year ago—on April 1, 2019—New York State enacted groundbreaking bail reform that eliminated cash bail for almost 90% of arrests and resulted in a 30% drop in the statewide jail population. The measure took effect on January 1, 2020, and the backlash from law enforcement, local newspapers, elected officials in opposition, the bail bond industry, and even the general public was strong, swift, and immediate. A few weeks ago, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature approved roll backs to the law, despite it having been in effect for only three months. Join Insha Rahman and Craig Trainor for a discussion—from different perspectives—about New York's bail reform law, its impact, proposals to reform the reform, and why roll backs were passed in the midst of a global pandemic.Featuring: -- Insha Rahman, Director of Strategy and New Initiatives,Vera Institute of Justice-- Craig Trainor, Founder, Trainor Law, P.C.