FedSoc Forums

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

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