FedSoc Forums

This program will explore key lessons learned on the role of language in shaping the gender debate, including the implications of replacing the term “sex” with “gender.” The speakers will examine where the feminist and conservative positions on gender diverge, analyze the current landscape, and offer perspectives for the future. Join May Mailman, former Legal Director at the Independent Women’s Forum, and feminist Kara Dansky, author of The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls, for an insightful discussion on the role of language in the transgender movement. Featuring: Kara Dansky, Author, The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls May Mailman, Former Legal Director, Independent Women's Forum

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 violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.Featuring:Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

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 District of Alabama in November 2022. The district court issued a permanent injunction on March 1, 2024, igniting a wave of similar lawsuits, including Texas Top Cop Shop, where a nationwide preliminary injunction was granted in May 2024.The Supreme Court is currently considering a stay application in Texas Top Cop Shop, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision on the government's appeal in NSBA v. Yellen remains pending. Prof. Lee will provide insights into these pivotal cases and their broader implications for federal regulatory authority and individual rights under the Constitution.Featuring: Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law

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 the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

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, Stanford University; Former Director of Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of StateProf. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights Clinic, Notre Dame Law SchoolModerator: Daniel G. West, Managing Director, SCF Partners

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 discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, under Hardison’s more than a de minimise cost test for undue hardship. After the Supreme Court held in Groff that undue hardship requires more—a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer’s business, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. But the district court’s analysis did not change. Mr. Kluge’s case is now back before the Seventh Circuit, which will be one of the first appellate courts to grapple with Groff’s new standard. Featuring: David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

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 other things.Featuring:Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP(Moderator) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr., Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP

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 remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked. Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated. Featuring: Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Jonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute Richard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLP Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation (Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee