Teleforum

The recent flurry of firings in the federal government has sparked new questions surrounding the president’s removal power and its limits. Several lawsuits have now been filed over precisely these questions. These suits could bring an old case back to the forefront—Humphrey's Executor v. United States—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president cannot constitutionally remove an FTC Commissioner without "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," as ordered in the FTC Act. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris has recently advised the Committee on the Judiciary that these “for-cause removal provisions [...] are unconstitutional and that the Department [of Justice] will no longer defend their constitutionality.”Will this ruling stand, and should it? Is it true that, as the Court reasoned in 1935, the Constitution does not confer an "illimitable power of removal" on the President? Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these questions and more.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circut Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majorit

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, alleging, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence. The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law. The district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers and Mexico appealed. The First Circuit agreed that while the protections of PLCAA were applicable to the manufacturer, they might still be liable under the predicate except

President Trump and his Administration are moving quickly to focus on different priorities for and make reforms to the U.S. Department of Justice. This conversation, with a veteran of the Department who served in the transition for this new Administration, will explore these new priorities and discuss how they may impact criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws and, therefore, justice in the United States.Featuring:Gregg N. Sofer, Partner, Husch Blackwell LLP(Moderator) Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination...in conduct related to the practice of law" based on a long list of protected characteristics including "race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status".In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be viola

Will the 2024 election mark a decisive shift in how U.S. financial regulators approach cryptocurrency and other digital assets? Will the SEC continue its retroactive and reactive regulation, or will it establish clear rules, sensible disclosure frameworks, and targeted enforcement priorities? How will the CFTC balance investor protection, capital formation, market integrity, and innovation? Finally, will the 119th Congress enact comprehensive digital asset legislation, and if so, what form will it take?Join leading experts for a timely discussion on the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for digital asset markets, innovation, and the broader financial system.Featuring: Hon. Dusty Johnson, U.S. House of Representatives, At-Large, South DakotaHon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, Wyoming Hon. Summer Mersinger, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading CommissionHon. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange CommissionModerator: J.C. Boggs, III, Partner, King & Spalding

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a sweeping federal statute requiring individuals with significant interests in LLCs and other entities registered under state or tribal law to disclose personal information, unless explicitly exempt. This information is stored in a Treasury Department database maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and accessible by the IRS, federal and foreign law enforcement, and intelligence agencies without court approval. (State authorities must obtain judicial authorization.) Affecting over 32 million entities, the CTA imposes severe penalties for noncompliance, including fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment. Initially set to take effect on January 1, 2025, for pre-existing entities, the implementation timeline has been disrupted by legal challenges.Join us as we delve into the constitutional controversies surrounding the CTA. Our speaker, Prof. Thomas Lee, was the lead lawyer in NSBA v. Yellen, the first of the CTA lawsuits filed in the Northern Distri

As President Donald Trump embarks on a second term, U.S. policy toward Iran stands at a crossroads. The Islamic Republic appears weaker and more isolated than ever, with its proxies severely damaged and domestic unrest threatening the regime’s stability. Yet, Tehran remains dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and has deepened its ties with Russia and China. Should Trump revive the “maximum pressure” strategy, pursue a more comprehensive nuclear agreement, or back an Israeli strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear? This webinar will explore the strategic choices ahead and their implications for the future of U.S. policy in the Middle East.Featuring: Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign RelationsBrian Katulis, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Middle East InstituteModerator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Director, National Security Institute; Assistant Professor of Law & Director, National Security Law & Policy Program at t

The international community has focused on the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas following Hamas’ massacre of civilians and taking of hostages on October 7th, 2023. However, after Hezbollah joined Hamas’ attack “in solidarity” by launching rockets and artillery at Israelis on October 8th, a second front opened. Fighting raged along Israel’s northern border through much of the past year, displacing large civilian populations for months. Innovative Israeli tactics – including the use of exploding pagers and walkie-talkies and the targeted killing of Hassan Nasrallah and other senior figures – captured the world’s attention, garnering condemnation from some and admiration from others. Our panel of experts will discuss these developments, with a specific focus on the principles of the law of armed conflict and the prospects for peace in an evolving regional landscape.Featuring: Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stan

What constitutional protections exist for retired admirals and generals commenting on political candidates, campaigns, and sitting presidents? What constitutes prohibited speech? What enforcement mechanisms exist for any such prohibited speech? What additional national security concerns exist when retired admirals and generals weigh in on politics?Join leading experts to examine the legal parameters of the persistent use of political speech by retired military officials in American politics.Featuring: Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolDr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolJ. Daniel McCarthy, Federal Special Master, US District Court For The District Of ColumbiaModerator: Andrew Darlington, Director, Florida Office of Election Crimes and Security

Where should the line be drawn in the debate between the rights of persons to hold religious beliefs and transgender advocates when it comes to government policies? Whether teachers or others can be compelled to use names and pronouns for students who identify as transgender is becoming a common battleground. The school district in Brownsburg, Indiana ordered Mr. Kluge to use incorrect pronouns, which he believes are a lie. The school moved to fire him when he expressed a religious objection—without considering any Title VII religious accommodations, as the law requires. Once Mr. Kluge suggested he use all students’ last names like a coach, the district relented. But school officials changed their minds when some students and teachers complained, saying no future accommodations would be allowed. They forced Mr. Kluge to either violate his religious beliefs with his own words, face termination, or resign. Mr. Kluge resigned under protest and filed suit under Title VII for religious discrimi

In 2025, antitrust and consumer protection remain hot topics in the legal world as a new Congress and Administration begin. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss possible antitrust and Federal Trade Commission reforms in the 119th Congress.Featuring:Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the JudiciaryThomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary CommitteeDaniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of RepresentativesLynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States SenateModerator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher--To register, click on the link above.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedi

This litigation update will discuss the United Natural Foods case, where a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel ordered the withdrawal of a Complaint issued against two unions, which occurred shortly after President Biden removed former General Counsel Peter Robb in January 2021. After the Supreme Court eliminated Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Sup. Ct. 6/28/2024), the Supreme Court in United Natural Foods vacated a divided Fifth Circuit opinion (where the majority had afforded deference to the Board), resulting in a recent Fifth Circuit oral argument which occurred on February 3, 2025. United Natural Foods is represented by Morgan Lewis partner (and former NLRB Chairman) Philip Miscimarra, who – in this session – will discuss whether deference to the NLRB has been eliminated, how have courts resolved challenges to the removal of former General Counsel Peter Robb, and is the NLRB required to apply the federal rules of civil procedure, among o

The Federal Circuit’s first Chief Judge, the Honorable Howard T. Markey, announced, “In our Court there will be an opinion explaining enough to tell you what the law is in every case.” He added, “We do not just render a one-worded decision and go away.” In recent years, however, the Federal Circuit has routinely issued one-word “judgment[s] of affirmance without opinion” under Federal Circuit Rule 36(a), saying only “AFFIRMED” rather than issuing an opinion. Is this practice lawful? Do the benefits of Rule 36’s benefits outweigh its costs? Join this FedSoc Forum for a lively debate on these questions. Featuring: Joseph Cianfrani, Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP Amit R. Vora, Special Counsel, Kasowitz Benson Torres Moderator: Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP -- To register, click the link above.

Due to impending inclement weather this event has been converted to a webinar. Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream! Panel: David BernsteinFounder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University;Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education (Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman,Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law ---Does DEI rise and fall due to cultural fads that tend to come and go, or is DEI mainly driven by substantive provisions of civil rights law that are much harder to unravel? Are DEI programs morphing from a primarily race-based focus to a gender and sex-based focus, or does the

Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act states an employer’s communication is not an unfair labor practice if it does not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or a promise of a benefit. Historically, this provision was understood to protect employers’ free speech rights to hold mandatory meetings with employees to express their views on unionization.However, in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 14, 2024), the National Labor Relations Board held that mandatory meetings where an employer expresses its views on unions violate the Act. The Board deemed such meetings unlawful, even if the views expressed during them do not independently constitute an unfair labor practice.Bill Messenger and Roger King will examine the history of Section 8(c), the Board’s interpretation of its scope, and the potential outcome of the Board’s decision on appeal to the 11th Circuit.Featuring:William L. Messenger, Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and

From the Olympics to San Jose State, each month we hear of new controversies where biological men are competing in women’s sports. Most of those situations relate to college, international, or public school competitions. But how do policies that permit transgender athlete participation impact private religious schools, both now and in the future? How do such schools’ sincerely-held religious beliefs about these issues change what state actors can and can’t do? In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, the Vermont Principals Association (VPA), a state-sponsored sports league, removed Mid Vermont from its athletic association because the school forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game against another team with a male athlete who identified as female. The Christian school declined to play the game because of its religious beliefs about sex, yet the VPA imposed this punishment while still allowing forfeits for secular reasons. Although the VPA has historically prohibited boys from pla

On his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship which moves to end birthright citizenship practice which guarantees that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.The next day, attorneys general from 22 states sued to block the Executive Order by asserting that the President is attempting to eliminate "a well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat.Join this expert panel for a discussion of this important and timely topic.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage FoundationProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution(Moderator) Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law

The Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases involving claims that an agency official is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, litigants can face an uphill climb to obtain meaningful relief. This state of affairs arguably has a serious impact on the incentive to bring these kinds of lawsuits going forward. This webinar will discuss the future of presidential removal power litigation in light of Collins, as well as related questions about the Court's understanding of the presidential removal power more generally and how private litigants can continue to bring these claims within the framework of Collins.Featuring:Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law CenterEli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP(Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School