FedSoc Forums

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.

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 Judiciary Thomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives Lynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States Senate Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- To register, click on 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 their focus remain on race and ethnicity? This panel will discuss how DEI is impacting federal civil rights issues, consider federal, state, and local levels, and debate whether DEI has passed its high-water mark. Featuring:David Bernstein, Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal ValuesKimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal FoundationProf. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign RelationsNicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

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 Education Foundation, Inc.(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

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 playing on girls’ sports teams “to protect opportunities for girl athletes,” it recently adopted policies that allow males who identify as female to participate in girls’ sports and demanded Mid Vermont’s girls’ teams play against teams with male athletes or not play at all. Mid Vermont and some of its families sued in response. In June 2024, a federal district court applied rational-basis review and denied Mid Vermont’s motion for preliminary injunction. The case is currently pending at the Second Circuit, where the court will resolve whether, while the case proceeds below, Mid Vermont will be allowed to rejoin the state athletic association it competed in for close to 30 years. Join us for a discussion of this case, the religious liberty issues implicated, and the larger consequences state nondiscrimination laws may have on religious schools going forward.Featuring:David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Eric W. Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

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

In August 2024, a federal district court held that Google possesses monopolistic power over “general search” and “general search text advertising,” which Google illegally maintained through exclusive agreements. The DOJ has suggested a range of possible remedies, including possible divestitures, while Google counters that the suggested remedies are “wildly interventionist” and could harm American consumers. A remedies trial will take place this year.This FedSoc Forum will discuss the decision, the remedies trial, and its future implications for other large companies, particularly within the tech sphere.Featuring:Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary CommitteeGeoffrey A. Manne, President & Founder, International Center for Law and EconomicsAnant Raut, Public Advisor, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

As China deepens its presence in Latin America by owning nearly 40 ports—including a new mega port in Peru—and establishing intelligence posts in Cuba, U.S. policymakers face growing concerns over regional influence. Twenty-two Latin American countries have joined China's Belt and Road Initiative, amplifying Beijing's strategic foothold. Meanwhile, security threats persist closer to home, with cartel-driven predation undermining economic stability and enabling sophisticated cross-border operations, including the construction of tunnels linking Mexico to Texas and Arizona. External pressures and internal instability present unique challenges for Latin American nations committed to democracy and capitalism. The United States must determine how best to support leaders seeking partnership while advancing shared interests. This panel will explore the nuanced historical considerations surrounding issues like the Panama Canal, the rise of cartels as major economic forces, and the effectiveness of prosperity zone initiatives. As the new Trump Administration navigates these urgent regional dynamics, panelists will examine pressing U.S. interests and discuss strategies to strengthen alliances, counter malign influence, and promote regional stability. Featuring: Dr. Ryan C. Berg, Director, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies Joseph M. Humire, Executive Director, Center for Secure Free Society Moderator: Erick A. Brimen, CEO & Chairman of the Board, NeWay Capital and Próspera

The Supreme Court is set to hear argument this term in a case raising both the nondelegation and private nondelegation doctrines.On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”), which funds broadband service for rural areas and hospitals, schools, libraries, and low-income individuals, is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority. In the Communications Act, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to collect contributions, or payments, from certain providers of telecommunications. The FCC employs the private Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to administer certain aspects of USF, including calculating the contribution factor based on the needs of each program established by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act.The Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as a panel of the Fifth Circuit, had previously upheld the constitutionality of the delegation of authority. And the FCC defended the Act against delegation challenges. It argued that the Communication Act provides an intelligible principle by which USF is to be administered and that USAC plays only a ministerial role.But the July en banc ruling by the Fifth Circuit held this regulatory revenue-raising program unconstitutional. It acknowledged “grave” concerns that the Act may have unconstitutionally delegated the taxing power to the FCC to impose a contribution amount, or tax, on America’s telecommunications carriers, and ultimately paid by consumers. Then it similarly concluded there were serious constitutional concerns about the FCC’s subdelegation to private parties, most notably USAC’s role in determining the contribution amount that will be charged to telecommunications carriers. The Court’s ultimate holding, however, was that the combination of these delegations violated the nondelegation doctrine.A petition for certiorari was granted on November 22, 2024. This roundtable will discuss this case and the broader legal issues it raises, including (1) is there a nondelegation doctrine?, (2) if there is, what should it look like?, and (3) how should the Supreme Court decide this case in light of the above discussion on the nondelegation doctrine.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPTrent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Grey PLLCProf. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law SchoolProf. Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Adam Griffin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.