FedSoc Forums

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

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.