FedSoc Forums

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), pro-choice advocates have argued that restrictions on abortion violate freedom of religion in some circumstances. A recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals, academic articles, and media stories have taken up these religious free-exercise challenges to abortion laws. This panel will explore the constitutional and statutory grounds for these claims in different faith traditions. pro-life responses to them, and the implications of these claims for religious liberty and for the post-Dobbs legal status of abortion. Featuring: Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom Prof. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law Prof. Jessie Hill, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School (Moderator) Prof. Michael Moreland, Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), long a favored forum for patent infringement disputes, has recently come under fire for duplicating the functions of the federal courts where patents disputes – often the same ones that are before the ITC – are litigated. In this panel, Professors Jorge L. Contreras, Michael Doane, and F. Scott Kieff will discuss the pros and cons of the ITC's patent jurisdiction and whether any changes are warranted in light of technology markets that are increasingly global in scope. Featuring: Prof. Jorge L. Contreras, James T. Jensen Endowed Professor for Transactional Law & Director of the Program on Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law Prof. Michael Doane, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Stevenson Bernard Professor, George Washington University Law School, and Former Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission Moderator: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP -- To register, click the link above.

The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, doggedly opposed by organized labor, included compliance with practicable portions of the federal rules of evidence and civil procedure, barring the Board from treating supervisors and independent contractors as protected employees, expressly incorporating employer free-speech rights, and more. Where are the Taft-Hartley amendments today and why? Featuring: Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board Hon. John F. Ring, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, former Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board

Should private attorneys general enforce laws? Proponents argue that this approach allows individuals and private entities to act in the public interest, supplementing often overburdened or under-resourced government agencies. This can lead to more comprehensive enforcement of laws, particularly in areas such as environmental protection, consumer rights, and civil liberties, where violations might otherwise go unchecked. On the other hand, critics contend that private enforcement of public laws unconstitutionally delegates enforcement power from executive officers to private citizens. Such laws eviscerate political accountability and undermine the rule of law, which leads to inconsistent application of laws and potentially frivolous or profit-driven lawsuits. Join us as we examine these perspectives. Featuring: Judd Stone II, Former Solicitor General, Texas Andrew Davis, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP Moderator: Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC

In January 2024, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) initiated an “emergency collection” of information about the electricity consumption of leading cryptocurrency mining companies operating in the United States. EIA’s Administrator declared the agency’s intent to analyze and report on the energy implications of cryptocurrency mining activities in the United States. This followed reports by leading environmental groups that have claim that, as an extremely energy-intensive process, cryptocurrency mining threatens the ability of governments across the globe to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, declaring, “If we do not take action to limit this growing industry now, we will not meet the goals set forth by the Paris Agreement and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius.” In response to the EIA’s action, several leaders of the crypto community filed suit, swiftly securing a preliminary injunction of EIA’s “emergency” action. This panel will discuss the litigation to date, the growth of crypto, Bitcoin mining, and the impact its data centers may be having on electric demand and the environment. What might EIA have planned in the future? What are states already doing? And are there implications for the burgeoning datacenter demands anticipated by the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Featuring: Thomas Cmar, Senior Attorney of the Clean Energy Program, Earthjustice Ewelina Czapla, Director of Energy Policy, Chamber of Digital Commerce, Digital Power Network Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Moderator: Jonathan Brightbill, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP --- To register, click the link above.

On Thursday, July 25, the Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter gathered for the annual Supreme Court Round Up discussing the 2023-2024 term. Featuring: Hon. Paul D. ClementPartner,Clement & Murphy PLLC Mayflower Hotel (Grand Ballroom)1127 Connecticut Ave NWWashington, D.C. 20036

In 2017, New York passed a law requiring employers to cover abortions in their health insurance plans. New York initially planned to exempt religious employers with sincere religious objections but later changed the exemption to protect only religious entities whose purpose is to inculcate religious values and who primarily employ and serve coreligionists. This exempted non-objecting ministries while leaving many religious groups that do object unprotected. Several of these unprotected religious groups—including an order of Anglican nuns, Roman Catholic dioceses, and Baptist and Lutheran churches—sued New York, arguing that the law forced them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. The New York courts ruled against the religious groups and in 2021, represented by Jones Day and Becket, the groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the bad rulings from the New York state courts, and told the state courts to reconsider the case in light of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. But on May 21, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals found Fulton inapplicable and again upheld the abortion mandate. The religious groups’ cert petition is due on August 18, 2024. Featuring: Lori Windham, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Moderator) Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General

The legal status of cannabis has been a controversial issue ever since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) prohibited its distribution under federal law. That act classified cannabis as a Schedule I drug, a category for drugs that have no legitimate medical use and cannot be used safely even under medical supervision. Schedules II-V are for drugs that have a legitimate medical use and pose a decreasing risk of harm. Congress placed cannabis in Schedule I but authorized the attorney general, in consultation with the Secretary of (what is now) Health and Human Services, to reschedule it. Recently, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Biden Administration has decided to recategorize cannabis and place it into Schedule III. That announcement raises numerous legal, policy, and political issues. Our panelists—Harvard Medical School Professor Bertha Madras and Ohio State Law School Professor Douglas Berman—will discuss them.Featuring:Prof. Douglas Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State UniversityDr. Bertha K. Madras, Professor of Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School(Moderator) Paul James Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation

In October of 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards for air quality, some of which had to do with air pollution which is carried across state borders, from “upwind” states to “downwind” states. The EPA required these states to submit plans of implementation but then rejected 21 of those plans as insufficient, instead publishing a federal plan which would enforce certain more stringent ozone pollution controls. This prompted several states and companies to challenge the rule and request a temporary block to its implementation, claiming the controls could lead to power grid emergencies. The EPA and its supporters claim, however, that a stay to the rule could critically affect public health and air quality. The Supreme Court did not speak to those issues, however, but instead stayed the rule after finding a likelihood of success on the claim that the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious.Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.Featuring:Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of OhioModerator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC

Garland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the (then standing) Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s authority. The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024. Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence. Featuring: Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute Prof. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco (Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School