FedSoc Forums

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

Explore the intricate dance between judicial elections and free speech rights. Panelists reveal how ethical constraints impact judges’ political discourse during elections. Discover the challenges in Wisconsin's nonpartisan elections amid political pressures. Delve into informed voting hurdles in Texas and the push for reform. Unpack the influence of campaign contributions on judicial impartiality and the implications of partisan bias in judicial nominations. This engaging conversation leaves you pondering the balance of law, politics, and free speech.

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE. DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives have become ubiquitous on campuses and in workplaces across the nation, particularly after the death of George Floyd in late May 2020 and the rapid rise of "anti-racism" initiatives. These efforts, frequently using racially exclusionary or derogatory terminology and eligibility, were considered by some legal experts to be of doubtful legality. But after the Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC (SFFA), DEI practices have come under expanded legal challenge. This program will examine the legal viability of race-focused DEI practices in light of SFFA, reviewing practices, challenges, and case developments. Featuring: Giovanni D. Cicione, Chair, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights Nicole Levitt, Staff Attorney, Women Against Abuse Inc. (Moderator) Prof. William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Founder of the Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org) CLE Cost: $25/Member $50/Non-Member To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page. CLE Info

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Complete Rule in its entirety, finding it exceed FTC’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious. The Rule, adopted in April, banned virtually all new noncompete clauses in employment contracts and invalidated existing noncompete agreements except for those covering certain senior executives. Ryan, LLC, the U.S. Chamber, the Business Roundtable, the Texas Association of Business, and the Longview Chamber of Commerce challenged this Rule. Join this FedSoc Forum discussion of the case, its decision, and what might happen next.Featuring:Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPJudson O. Littleton, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLPModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.For more information on this topic, click here to read our blog.

The regulatory landscape for Private Funds has changed dramatically over the past decade, culminating in the SEC’s recent Private Fund Advisers regulation, which was recently struck down by the Fifth Circuit. In the wake of this important court decision, what’s next? Will the SEC go back to the drawing board? Is more regulation even needed? What broader implications can we draw for the legal landscape and regulatory governance principles going forward? Featuring: David Blass, Partner, Simpson Thacher Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Jennifer Choi, CEO, Institutional Limited Partners Association Moderator: Lindsey Keljo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Head of Asset Management Group, SIFMA -- To register, click the link above.

This event will survey the SEC's current involvement in the cryptocurrency field. The conversation will include best practices for defending against SEC enforcement inquiries or investigations in the crypto industry. It will also examine the proactive legal approaches individuals and companies can take against the SEC, detailing how, when, and why they can bring suit. This discussion will conclude with a conversation about private sector initiatives to establish a sound disclosure protocol to avoid fraud and improve crypto asset disclosure. Featuring:Rachel Barnett, CLO of IEX ExchangeProf. Chris Brummer, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Financial Technology at Georgetown LawWilliam R. McLucas, Partner, WilmerHaleBrian Richman, Associate, Gibson, Dunn, & CrutcherPatrick Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner (Moderator)

Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Merck argues that the drug pricing program violates the First Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, claiming it forces them to accept government-dictated prices and infringes on their property rights. The federal government, represented by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and others, contends that Merck's arguments are unfounded and that the negotiation program is essential for reducing drug costs and ensuring the financial stability of Medicare. The case could significantly impact drug pricing, Medicare costs, and federal regulatory authority in healthcare.The case was filed on June 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 19, 2023, Merck filed an amended complaint adding its subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC as a second plaintiff. The case is ongoing, with both parties having filed motions for summary judgment.Join us for a litigation update on Merck et al. v. Becerra et al. with Yaakov M. Roth, one of the lead attorneys at Jones Day representing Merck & Co., Inc.

In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the plaintiff, Sylvia Gonzalez, argued that her arrest was a retaliatory action violating her First Amendment rights, stemming from her political activities as a newly elected city council member who had organized a petition to remove the city manager. She contended that she should be allowed to pursue her retaliatory arrest claim based on the circumstances surrounding her case. On the other hand, the defendants, including Mayor Edward Trevino and other city officials, maintained that the arrest was lawful and based on probable cause, as Gonzalez was accused of stealing a government document. They argued that the existence of probable cause should bar Gonzalez's retaliatory arrest claim, relying on the precedent set in Nieves v. Bartlett, which generally prevents such claims when probable cause exists. The defendants also contended that Gonzalez failed to provide sufficient evidence of similarly situated individuals who were not arrested in comparable circumstances, which they believed was necessary to overcome the probable cause bar.On June 20, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. Former President Trump's legal team argued that a former president should have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed during their tenure, citing the need for presidents to act boldly without fear of future prosecution. They contended that all allegations in the indictment fell within Trump's official duties as president. The United States government, represented by Special Counsel Jack Smith, argued that while presidents may have some immunity for official acts, this does not extend to criminal conduct or actions outside the scope of presidential duties. The Court ruled in a 6-3 opinion that former presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for other official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts. The case was remanded to lower courts to determine which of Trump's alleged actions were official or unofficial.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.