FedSoc Forums

Bethesda University, a private Christian university founded around Pentecostal theology, faced an internal leadership dispute, as the president persuaded the board to appoint non-Pentecostal members to the board of directors. The rest of the leadership objected and fired President Cho, arguing that only Pentecostals could serve on the board of directors. The former President and the California Court of Appeals sided with him, determining that the election of non-Pentecostal board members was valid under the university’s bylaws. The court held that the case involved the interpretation of governance documents, not religious doctrine, which it ruled on. Bethesda University contends that by allowing non-Pentecostals on the board, the California Court of Appeals unlawfully interfered in the internal disputes of a religious organization, and in so doing, it violated the Free Exercise Clause, specifically the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine. The university is now petitioning the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.Featuring:Ryan Gardner, Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. William Robert Wagner, WFFC Distinguished Chair, Spring Arbor University; Counselor of the Ministry & President Emeritus, Salt & Light Global; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School

There have been significant changes in federal AI policy over the course of the first term of the Trump administration and Biden administration that present a major inflection point for President-elect Trump as he prepares for his second term in office. This panel will delve into the differing doctrinal and policy frameworks for executive branch and congressional AI policy to map out how this transformative technology and its associated policy might manifest in President Trump's second term in office. Featuring: Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute Satya Thallam, Senior Vice President, Americans for Responsible Innovation Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute (Moderator) Prof. Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law

The intersection of the First Amendment, parental rights, and educational texts has become a topic of significant conversation over the past several years. School boards in states across the nation are facing questions related to what materials are appropriate for students to read, how to educate children, the nature of parental rights, what exceptions should be granted for families who raise religious objections, and so much more. Legal challenges have cropped up on both sides, as families challenge various school boards' decisions concerning opt-outs from particular texts and decisions to remove texts from libraries.Join us for a litigation update conversation on Pickens County Chapter of the NAACP et al. v. School District of Pickens County (a South Carolina case concerning the removal of a book) and related proceedings concerning instructional materials in South Carolina and religious families receiving opt-outs in St. Louis Park, MN.Featuring:Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLPKayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has initiated a proceeding that proposes to require radio and TV broadcasters as well as cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to include a disclaimer on all political advertisements that contain content generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The requirement would apply to both candidate and issue ads. The broadcasters of the ads also would be required to include a notice in their online political files disclosing the ad’s use of AI. The FCC’s rulemaking raises serious questions regarding the agency’s statutory authority to adopt the proposed rule and whether the Federal Election Commission has sole authority to administer federal election laws so that the FCC proposal is preempted. Moreover, as a matter of policy, objections have been raised regarding the FCC’s proposal. With the election just weeks away, a panel composed of notable experts will discuss and debate the FCC’s proposal.Featuring: Brendan Carr, FCC CommissionerChris Lewis, President, Public KnowledgeProf. Bradley Smith, Former FEC Chairman; Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law SchoolModerator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS granted the FDA's cert petition and the court heard oral argument on Monday, December 2. Join us in discussing the argument and considering which way the Court might take this.Featuring:Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLPModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One--To register, click the link above.

With the upcoming shift in presidential administrations, there is a potential for significant changes within federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission. This webinar will speculate and discuss exactly what sorts of changes may be in store for the SEC agenda. Our two speakers will address questions surrounding topics like the agency’s enforcement approach, the future of cryptocurrency, climate regulation, exemptive relief post-Chevron, and the timeline according to which these changes may happen. Join us as we consider what the next administration’s SEC agenda could look like.Featuring:C. Wallace DeWitt, Securities LawyerModerator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University--To register, click the link above.

This past April, the Department of Education published a 423-page final rule amending its implementing for Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs and activities, with certain, important exceptions. The new rule was consistent with an order issued by President Biden on his first day in office that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County be applied across the entire federal government.Shortly after the new rule issued, at least ten separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states, school districts, and parental rights groups in various federal jurisdictions. Thus far, the lawsuits have been uniformly successfully, with the rule now preliminarily enjoined in 26 states and numerous additional school districts. As oral argument is set to begin in the circuit courts on the government’s appeal, this webinar will review this litigation’s history, as well as preview its future, including what it might say about Bostock applicability outside of Title VII.Featuring: Donald A. Daugherty, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Defense of Freedom Institute

The Supreme Court has recently issued rulings in three cases involving speech-based arrests, demonstrating increased scrutiny of such incidents. In a span of four months, the Court reversed three lower court decisions that had previously granted immunity to government officials accused of arresting individuals for their speech.The cases are Gonzalez v. Trevino, decided on June 20, 2024; Murphy v. Schmitt, summarily reversed on October 7, 2024; and Villarreal v. Alaniz, summarily reversed on October 15, 2024. These rulings allow the cases to proceed, giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to pursue legal action against the government officials responsible for their arrests. Despite the diverse factual backgrounds of these cases, the Court's consistent approach suggests a heightened focus on protecting First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's recent decisions may have significant implications for First Amendment jurisprudence and future cases involving speech-related arrests.Join us for a conversation about these three cases and their possible ramifications. Featuring: Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice

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. Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (December 2) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious. U.S. v. Miller (December 2) - Bankruptcy; Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy. Republic of Hungary v. Simon (December 3) - International Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA. U.S. v. Skrmetti (December 4) - Federalism & Separation of Powers& SOGI; Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Kousisis v. U.S. (December 9) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.” Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (December 9) - Federal Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (December 10) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers (December 11) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates. Featuring: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Eric N. Kniffin, Attorney, Kniffin Law PLLC, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation Alexandra Shapiro, Partner, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center (Moderator) Tessa Shurr, Committee Staff, U.S. House of Representatives

Delligatti v. United States concerns whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.Oral Argument was heard on November 12, 2024.Join us for this Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze OA and the potential outcomes of this case.Featuring:Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister