FedSoc Forums

Fischer v. United States concerned whether to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) — a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. Petitioners in the case were Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller, who were involved with the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. Based on their actions that day they were charged with a variety of charges including one count of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2). Appellees did not contest the other charges but moved to dismiss the charge mentioned above, arguing §1512 (c) is ambiguous concerning (c)(2) and (c)(1). The district court agreed. Upon appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral arguments on April 16, 2024. A 6-3 Court, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, released its opinion on June 28, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion and Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications. Featuring: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson raised the question of whether the sections of the Grants Pass Municipal Code which prohibit sleeping/camping on public property like parks and streets constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The codes in question only impose civil penalties, which can, in certain circumstances develop into criminal penalties. After the Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision holding that the codes violated the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court granted cert, and oral argument was heard on April 22, 2024. On June 28, 2024 a 6-3 Court issued its decision, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision of this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights. Featuring: Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024. On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward. Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law. Featuring: Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance (Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

United States v. Rahimi raised the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.Zackey Rahimi was found in possession of a rifle and pistol while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, a protective order that specifically barred him from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (a federal statute that makes it illegal for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a firearm).Rahimi challenged that indictment, arguing the law is facially unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. Initially, both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and the Court heard oral argument in the case on November 7, 2023.On June 21, 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.Featuring:Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel

The Fearless Fund ran the “Strivers Grant Contest,” which awards $20,000 and other benefits “only to black females.” Last year, the American Alliance for Equal Rights sued Fearless, claiming its racially discriminatory contest violated 42 U.S.C. §1981, which prohibits private parties from discriminating on the basis of race when making or enforcing contracts. Fearless raised several arguments in reply—claiming, for instance, that the Alliance didn’t have standing and that the contest was a valid “affirmative action” program—but it also raised a First Amendment defense. According to Fearless, its discriminatory contest was really an act of “expressive association.” Although the Supreme Court rejected that argument when segregationists made it, Runyon v. McCrary (1976), Fearless won on it in the district court in Georgia. The Alliance sought an injunction pending appeal, which a split panel of the Eleventh Circuit granted. The court concluded that the Alliance had “clearly shown the existence of a contractual regime,” which brought the case “within the realm of §1981.” The Court then rejected Fearless’ First Amendment argument, emphasizing that the Constitution “does not give [Fearless] the right to exclude persons from a contractual regime based on their race.” On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court, with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Fearless Fund, holding that (1) the Alliance has standing and (2) that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate because Fearless’s contest is substantially likely to violate § 1981, is substantially unlikely to enjoy First Amendment protection, and inflicts irreparable injury. Joining us to discuss this litigation and ruling is the Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, who filed an amicus brief alongside the American Civil Rights Project and Buckeye Institute in support of the Alliance. Featuring: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

Congress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future. Featuring: Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of Law Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University (Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In November 2022, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, against the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of the Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) and others. The suit challenged the FDA’s 2000 decision to legalize mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs often used in conjunction as chemical abortifacients, and regulation of the drugs thereafter. The case rose through the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in favor of AHM. The Supreme Court granted cert, heard Oral Argument on March 26, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued a 9-0 decision holding the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications. Featuring: Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP Megan M. Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk (Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of labor and administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The question before the Supreme Court, however, was not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use? The Court heard oral argument in the case on April 23, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued its decision, vacating the decision of the Sixth Circuit and remanding it for further proceedings. Justice Thomas wrote the decision for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson wrote an opinion dissenting in part, concurring in part, and concurring in judgment. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications. Featuring: G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided two cases in which it held that certain restrictions against registering certain kinds of marks violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam (2017), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing terms disparaging toward a person or institution. In Icanu v. Brunetti (2019), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing scandalous or immoral terms. The Supreme Court has now decided Vidal v. Elster, in which it adopted this question presented: “Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [Lanham Act section 2(c)] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” At issue was an application to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL on various clothing items. Lanham Act section 2(c) prohibits registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.” The Federal Circuit held that this proscription violates the Free Speech Clause as applied in this mark-registration application. This Courthouse Steps presentation will discuss the background leading to Vidal v. Elster, review the Court's decision, and discuss its implications for trademark law and free speech. Featuring: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP Moderator: John B. Farmer, Attorney, Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA), which allows Native tribes to administer their healthcare programs instead of the Indian Health Service (IHS), also requires IHS to pay “contract support costs” (CSCs) to tribes to offset overhead costs incurred by the tribes while administering their healthcare programs. Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (consolidated with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe) asks whether the IHS must pay CSCs not only to support IHS-funded activities but also to support tribes’ expenditure of income collected directly from third-party insurers. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, exercising its sovereignty in Arizona, managed its healthcare programs and billed outside insurers directly. However, the Tribe encountered difficulties funding the additional healthcare services from third-party revenue because IHS would not pay CSCs for these transactions. The Tribe sued the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, IHS, and the United States for the CSC for the years 2011–2013. The district court dismissed the Tribe’s claim for the third-party-revenue-funded portions of the Tribe’s healthcare program from CSC reimbursement, and the Tribe appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the statutory text of 25 U.S.C. § 5325(a) warranted a reversal of the dismissal and remanded further proceedings. The Court heard oral arguments on March 25, 2024, and ruled in the case on June 6, 2024, affirming the Ninth Circuit's holding in a 5-4 decision. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications. Featuring: Jennifer H. Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig