FedSoc Forums

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from India. Devas, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leading scholars of international arbitration, is asking the Court to reverse arguing that U.S. courts need not consider due process protections for foreign states, and are authorized under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to enforce such awards even without a nexus to the United States.While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks. This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.

Environmental Justice - an effort to affirmatively address disproportionate pollution and environmental burdens borne by low-income and minority communities - grew from an Executive Order by President Clinton in 1994 through expanded efforts across the entire federal government with special emphasis at DOJ and the EPA in the Biden Administration. President Trump issued an Executive Order on his second day in office prohibiting "... all discriminatory and illegal preferences...," followed by a Memorandum by Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinding the Environmental Justice policies of prior administrations. What are the implications of this Administration’s cancelling of environmental justice writ large? What does this mean for environmental enforcement and infrastructure development in low-income and minority communities? Do its concepts still live on in the federal government and at state and local levels? Join us for a balanced discussion of these questions and more.Featuring:Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCHorace Cooper, Chairman, Project 21 National Advisory Board, National Center for Public Policy ResearchJohn C. Cruden, Principal, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.Matt Tejada, Senior Vice President, Environmental Health, NRDCModerator: John S. Irving, Partner, Earth & Water Law--To register, click the link above.

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency concerned whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform. On March 4, 2025, the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.Featuring:Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been several developments in the litigation surrounding the Trump Adminsitration’s directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds.On February 25, 2025, a D.C. District judge ordered the Administration to issue a portion of the payments that it had previously sought to pause by the next day (that is, by 11:59 p.m. on February 26). The Trump Administration appealed to the Supreme Court requesting an administrative stay, which the Chief Justice granted on a temporary basis as the application was referred to the full Court. On March 5, 2025, a 5-4 Court vacated the stay granted by the Chief Justice, leaving in place the February 25 order (though it noted the deadline stated therein had passed and the lower court needed to give clarity as to the requirements that still remained for the Government) and the initial February 13 temporary restraining order which initially enjoined the Administration from enforcing its earlier directives to pause all aid payments.Join us for a litigation update on this case as we discuss the various orders, the move by the Court to vacate the stay, and what may happen next.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Distinguished Visiting Scholar, School of Civic Leadership, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

In late January, President Donald Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. The termination was controversial because Member Wilcox, like all Board members, was arguably protected from removal by the National Labor Relations Act. The Act says that a Board member may be removed only for “malfeasance” or “neglect of duty.” It also requires the member to be given “notice and a hearing.” In firing Member Wilcox, the President cited no malfeasance or neglect; nor did he give her a hearing. Instead, he argued that regardless of the Act’s language, he could remove her under his inherent authority as head of the executive branch.Member Wilcox responded by suing for reinstatement. A federal district court will hear arguments in the case on March 5. Join us that afternoon as Alex MacDonald, co-chair of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute, breaks down the case.Featuring:Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

The Harrisonburg City school board enacted a policy that required school staff to affirm the board’s view on gender identity including when it conflicted with the staff’s own religious beliefs. Upon any child’s request, the school district policy required staff to immediately begin using opposite-sex pronouns and forbid staff from sharing the information with parents. Middle-school teacher, Deb Figliola challenged the board’s policy as violations of the Virginia Constitution’s Free Speech Clause and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After arguments before the Rockingham County Circuit Court, the school district agreed to provide a religious accommodation to Figliola and other teachers. Join ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, director of the ADF Center for Parental Rights, who represented Ms. Figliola and Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation as they break down the case.Featuring:Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Parental Rights, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation

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 Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawDr. Dan Epstein, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University College of LawProf. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law CenterWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Elizabeth Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

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 majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

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 exception. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 4, 2025. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the case and analyze how oral arguments went before the Court. Featuring: Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

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