FedSoc Forums

In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland) the Court is set to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)(enacted by Congress in April 2024), as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Put forward as a law focused on national security, PAFACA would require that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. The government contends that TikTok poses a notable national security threat given the data it, as a foreign-owned company, collects on American users and the extent to which it could be used to control information (or disinformation) flow to American users. TikTok, along with several users, on the other hand, challenged the law, contending that while there may be a legitimate government interest in national security, the means employed in this case violate the free speech rights of both TikTok and its American users who use the platform to create content. The DC Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Ginsburg, upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge.The Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024, and oral argument is set for January 10, 2025. Join us for a panel Courthouse Steps program following oral argument.Featuring:Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedomChristian Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana Attorney General's Office(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together

Lawless uses the author, Ilya Shapiro’s, “lived experience” with Georgetown as a jumping-off point to discuss what he describes as the warping of legal education and the legal profession. He argues that law schools used to teach students how to think critically, advance logical arguments, and respect opponents. Now they produce lawyers who can’t tolerate disagreement and reject the validity of the law itself. He claims the problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty; it’s institutional weakness. Law schools produce the next generation of gatekeepers for our legal and political institutions: America’s future judges, prosecutors, politicians, and presidents. Shapiro argues it’s a big deal and discusses the failure of ideology, leadership, and bureaucracy—and what we can do about it.Featuring: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

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.TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (January 10) - First Amendment, National Security; Issue(s): Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Hewitt v. U.S. (January 13) - Criminal Law, First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (January 13) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.Thompson v. U.S. (January 14) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services (January 14) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (January 15) - Free Speech; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation (January 21) - Telecommunications; Issue(s): Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.Barnes v. Felix (January 22) - Criminal Law, Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.Cunningham v. Cornell University (January 22) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.Featuring:Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceProf. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolShannon M. Grammel, Counsel, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPGregory Y. Porter, Partner, Bailey Glasser LLPVikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together TrustBryan Weir, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC(Moderator) Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

In August of 2024, the state of Utah filed suit against the United States contesting the ownership of certain lands in Utah. When asking the United States Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction, Utah argues that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to retain perpetual ownership of 18.5 million acres of land in Utah that the Bureau of Land Management currently manages. It further asks the court to order the federal government to dispose of those lands. The federal government counters that the constitution permits the continued federal ownership of these lands, and confers upon it the right to determine when, how, and if it should dispose of these lands. Join this FedSoc Forum in discussing this case and its possible outcomes, including the prospect of the disposal of millions of acres of federally owned land. Featuring:Ethan Blevins, Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal FoundationDavid Willms, Associate Vice President, Public Lands at National Wildlife FederationModerator: Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center--To register, click the link above.

Alpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“Alpine’) raises a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure and regulatory authority of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Alpine Securities, a brokerage firm, argues that the structure of FINRA violates the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2), and the separation of powers doctrine. The company contends that FINRA, which operates as a self-regulatory organization (SRO), is improperly structured because its disciplinary and regulatory authority is exercised without sufficient oversight by the federal government or the President, who would normally appoint officers exercising such powers.Alpine's central argument is that FINRA's board members are not appointed by the President, nor are they subject to Senate confirmation, as required by the Appointments Clause and the private non-delegation doctrine for officers of the United States. Alpine contends that, as a private, non-governmental entity, FINRA is composed of individuals who are not accountable to the public or elected officials in the same way that government agencies are. This, Alpine argues, makes its regulatory and enforcement powers unconstitutional. FINRA argues, however, that its regulations and enforcement decisions are under close scrutiny by the SEC, and, thus, that this delegation of federal power to it, a private regulator, is constitutionally permissible. FINRA also worries that accepting Alpine’s arguments could bring destabilizing and potentially disastrous consequences to the self-regulatory framework of the markets.The case involves questions about the balance between public regulatory authority and private self-regulation within the securities industry. The outcome could have significant implications for the structure of SROs like FINRA, which play a key role in regulating the securities industry but operate outside the direct control of the government.The Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group of the Federalist Society is pleased to present this FedSoc Forum on the Alpine case. Join us in discussing the arguments raised in the case and the DC Circuit’s opinion, as well as the implications for securities industry self-regulation going forward.Featuring:Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Lead Counsel for AlpineW. Hardy Callcott, Partner, Sidley Austin LLPModerator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.--To register, click the link above.

Federal civil rights enforcement in the employment area is handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC,) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP,) and the Department of Justice (DOJ.) This webinar will explore efforts to coordinate enforcement by the three agencies and look at ways to avoid duplication of efforts to streamline and strengthen civil rights and equal employment opportunity enforcement in the United States. It will also look at recent efforts by the federal government to increase the presence of DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) programs in the federal sector and the public response to these developments.Featuring:Jon Greenbaum, Founder, Justice Legal Strategies PLLCProf. George R. La Noue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore CountyCraig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates; Former Director, OFCCPHon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Former Director, OFCCP; Former Chair, EEOC(Moderator) Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association; Former Deputy Director, OFCCP

In the wake of the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack in Israel, there have been reports of discrimination against Jewish students at prominent American colleges and universities. This panel will discuss the nature of the legal remedies that may be available, their likelihood of success, and any possible downsides that might accompany their use.Featuring:Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy CenterProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Alexander Tsesis, Professor and D’Alemberte Chair in Constitutional Law, Florida State University College of Law(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

On December 9, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston. The case involved an equal protection challenge to a change in admissions policy in Boston, where a competitive public school altered its admissions criteria in a manner that reduced the number of Asian and Caucasian students. The lower courts rejected the challenge, with the First Circuit indicating that an equal protection challenge to a facially neutral policy—like admissions criteria that do not mention race—must establish that the impact on the targeted race was so severe as to reduce their numerical presence in the school below their demographic numbers in the relevant population.By denying certiorari, the Court left the First Circuit’s opinion in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissent from denial, as they had in a similar case earlier this year called Coalition for TJ. Justice Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial, stating that he largely agreed with Justice Alito’s dissent.This litigation update will evaluate the state of the law when it comes to “proxy discrimination” measures, and whether an equal protection claim must establish a particularly onerous disparate impact on the targeted race at issue.Featuring: Christopher M. Kieser, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

This case concerns the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah railway, they conducted an environmental review in which they considered direct impacts of the highway on nearby land, water, and air. But they did not consider certain environmental “downline impacts” or possible effects on historic sites along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The county challenged their review as inadequate, while the Board argues that these effects were either too minimal for serious analysis, or outside the scope of their authority. Oral Argument is set for December 10, 2024. Join us in discussing this case and its argument with Prof. Andrew Mergen, who assisted respondents in the court of appeals, and Prof. Paul Salamanca, who wrote an amicus brief in support of petitioners. Featuring:Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law & Faculty Director, Emmett Environmental Law and Policy ClinicProf. Paul Salamanca, Acting Dean and Wendell H. Ford Professor of Law, University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of LawModerator: Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP--To register, click the link above.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They allege that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari on June 24, 2024, on the question of whether and how the Equal Protection Clause interacts with Tennesse's law. Argument before the Court occurred on December 4, 2024.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation