FedSoc Forums

For many years, legal scholars have declared that the nondelegation doctrine is dead. Professor Cass Sunstein once quipped that the nondelegation doctrine had only "one good year" and more than 200 "bad ones." But that has changed recently. In 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Communications Commision's (FCC) Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional on nondelegation grounds. It was one of the only times since 1935 that a court has done so, and it appears that 2024 (and beyond) may turn out to be good years for the nondelegation doctrine. Contrary to the FCC's argument, the en banc Fifth Circuit concluded that the Universal Service Fund operates as a tax, which only Congress has the power and authority to require. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or to any other executive branch agency. The nondelegation doctrine has not been entirely dead for the last hundred years; courts often construe statutes so as not to invalidate them under the nondelegation doctrine. The en banc Fifth Circuit rejected that approach. Does the canon in the common law of agency, mentioned by the Fifth Circuit, known as delegata potestas non potest delegari (Latin for “delegated power may not be delegated”), have any impact on the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine? Assuming the nondelegation doctrine is valid, what are the standards that courts should look to when determining whether a statute is sufficiently intelligible? Do words like “in the public interest” or instructions for the agency to “provide reasonable regulations” provide sufficient guidance to agencies? What kind of principles can be applied that are also judicially enforceable? If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit, what will be the impact on other statutes? To discuss these important questions and others, Jeff Beelaert, a partner at Stein Mitchell, and Trent McCotter, a partner at Boyden Gray, will join us. Featuring: Jeffrey Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute -- To register, click the link above.

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. Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Williams v. Washington, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. Garland v. VanDerStok, (October 8) -Second Amendment; Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act. Lackey v. Stinnie, (October 8) -Civil Procedure; (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988. Glossip v. Oklahoma, (October 9) -Criminal Law; (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment. Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, (October 15), -Immigration; Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria. Medical Marijuana v. Horn, October 15 -Criminal Law; Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (October 16) -Environmental Law & Regulation; Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform. Bufkin v. McDonough, (October 16) -Vetrans Affairs; Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule. Featuring: James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation Matthew Rice, Solicitor General, Tennessee Attorney General's Office Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation (Moderator) Kirby T. West, Attorney, Institute of Justice

On June 25, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the nation’s first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause based on its view that the privately operated school was both a government entity and a state actor. This finding of state action also led the court to uphold a state law that expressly bans religious entities but not secular ones from operating charter schools. This forum will present views from litigation counsel on both sides of this historic case. Panelists will explore the arguments for and against St. Isidore, including whether St. Isidore can fairly be considered a state actor and whether the Free Exercise Clause prevents a state from discriminating against religious operators in a public program that encourages private innovation in the formation of charter schools.Featuring:Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and StatePhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, Professor of Law and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

In Nowhere to Live: The Hidden Story of America’s Housing Crisis, author James Burling describes the interesting history of America's housing market. With stories going back to the Civil War, the early twentieth century, and the “urban renewal” movement of the 1950s, Nowhere to Live argues that a series of governmental mistakes helped to create a current housing crisis. Burling also proposes a solution: "not by government fiat, but through the restoration of private property rights." Join the author and moderator Eric Claeys as they discuss these issues and the book itself. Featuring: James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation Moderator: Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University -- To register, click the link above. Click here to read James Burling's blog post.

The Supreme Court recently decided that they will review a case dealing with the Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits the pollution of US waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In order to comply with the statute, the city of San Francisco was issued a permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2019. The permit, however, lays down narrative limitations on the discharge of pollutants, such as anything which may “cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard.” The city of San Francisco challenged the EPA’s permit, arguing that these restrictions “expose San Francisco and numerous permit-holders nationwide to enforcement actions while failing to tell them how much they need to limit or treat their discharges to comply with the Act.” In July 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected San Francisco’s argument, finding that the narrative limitations are not too vague but are rather important to ensuring that state water standards are met. This then prompted the city to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.Join this FedSoc Forum as panelists discuss varying views of this case and what the Supreme Court’s review might bring.Featuring:Prof. Robin Craig, Robert A. Schroeder Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of LawAndre Monette, Managing Partner, Best Best & Krieger LLPModerator: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law--To register, click the link above.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently adopted comprehensive new land management regulations known as the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,” or simply, “the Public Lands Rule.” The rule has spurred litigation challenging the Interior Department’s authority to establish a conservation “overlay” over 245 million acres of federal lands. Some argue that this rule, which aims to “build and maintain the resilience of ecosystems on public lands,” violates the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), which requires BLM to “manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield” and “regulate, through easements, permits, leases, licenses, published rules, or other instruments as the Secretary deems appropriate, the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands.” In the Public Lands Rule, BLM claims “wide discretion to determine how those [FLPMA] principles [of multiple use and sustained yield] should be applied.” Whether this new rule improperly places “conservation” above other uses of federal lands – for grazing, recreation, energy production, or otherwise – is the subject of heated debate. In this FedSoc Forum, a panel of experts from different vantage points will consider the legal and policy merits of the “Public Lands Rule” and address whether the rule should survive judicial review and/or congressional scrutiny.Featuring:Prof. Sam Kalen, Associate Dean, William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law Jeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts LLPJonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research CenterModerator: Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

PowerPoint Slides This program will provide a short introduction to the world of E-Discovery, predominantly in the civil litigation setting. Join us as Prof. Ted Hirt discusses E-Discovery and some related topics: the challenge of "big data," how the Federal Civil Rules deal with E-discovery (including case scheduling and orders), and "proportionality." Additionally, this program will cover topics including dealing with the client, safeguarding privileges, ways to deploy technologies in E-discovery production, and sanctions or measures for the destruction of information. Featuring: Prof. Ted Hirt, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School

The free speech rights (or lack thereof) of K-12 students has always been a unique area in the realm of First Amendment litigation. Cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District from 60 years ago established that students do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, though subsequent cases have articulated that those First Amendment rights are not inherently co-extensive with the rights of adults. Schools often implement policies aimed at preserving the safety of students or that seek to limit “offensive” or “inappropriate” messaging which can constrain or inhibit the free speech of their students. To what degree that restriction of a constitutional right is permissible has become a question for the courts in a series of cases where students (or their representatives) are challenging school policies on the basis of alleged unconstitutional restriction of students’ First Amendment rights.Join us for an update on several of these cases including:D.A. v Tri-County Area Schools (Michigan student forbidden from wearing a "Let's Go Brandon Sweatshirt.") -L.M. v Town of Middleborough (Massachusetts school forbade student from wearing "There are only two genders" tshirt).B.B. v Capistrano Unified School District (California school punished kindergartner over "All Lives Matter" in drawing).Featuring:Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending FreedomCaleb Trotter, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together

On July 15th, Teamster’s president Sean O’Brien surprised the country by becoming the first head of the nation’s largest labor union to speak at the Republican National Convention. Former president Trump chose J.D. Vance as his running mate, on the same day. Vance, a longtime advocate for disaffected blue-collar workers, reflects a larger populist swing within some parts of the conservative movement. The Republican party, long characterized by some as hostile to unions, now includes many who argue in favor of laws promoting a reformed vision of organized labor. Are right-wing populists correct in identifying flaws in current labor law? Can supporting organized labor be compatible with conservative governance? What changes to labor law if any, could create a better future for workers, businesses, and the American people? Featuring: Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Oren Cass, Executive Director, American Compass Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C. (Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to shape arbitration law through a strict interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), with each term introducing new nuances. This program will explore Supreme Court decisions from the latest term and examine recent interpretations by federal appeals courts, focusing on their impact on arbitration practice. The panel will offer practical insights into the evolving landscape of arbitration law, updates for attorneys to ensure compliance with the latest legal developments, and strategies to optimize arbitration for clients currently using or considering arbitration.Featuring: Charles Bennett, Trial Lawyer, Bennett LegalRichard Faulker, Attorney, Faulkner ADR Law, Of Counsel, Bennett LegalPhilip J. Loree, Jr., Partner, The Loree Law Firm