FedSoc Forums

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute---To register, click the link above.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Idaho, arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts a state law that restricts abortion in all but limited circumstances. The district court sided with the Biden administration and issued a preliminary injunction on Idaho’s law. On June 27th, 2024, the Supreme Court (6-3) dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted instead of determining the statutory interpretation question. It vacated its earlier stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction against Idaho’s abortion law. Join Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Center for Life & Regulatory Practice at Alliance Defending Freedom, for a breakdown of this decision and its implications on the legal issues surrounding abortion in the post-Roe era. Featuring: Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asked whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that sought to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. This 6-3 decision held that a claim under the APA does not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Please join us as we discuss the case and decision recently released by the Court.Featuring:Molly Nixon, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law---For more information, check out this blog post by Michael J. Showalter.To register, click the link above.

The marked inflation of food pricing is apparent upon any trip to the grocery store. Can new regulations aimed at governing the relationship between farmers and the corporations to which they sell their livestock help bring food prices down while allowing farmers to earn more for their labor? The Biden Administration has issued four regulations that aim to (1) prohibit certain previously common contractual terms between farmers and the purchasers of their livestock, (2) allow farmers to use an antitrust statute to assert claims of racial and other types of discrimination, and (3) allow farmers in general to more easily sue meat processors with claims of unfair competition. Are these new regulations legally sound, and will they work to bring down food prices? Join Minnesota Congressman Brad Finstad, Farm Action's Joe Maxwell, and the North American Meat Institute's Mark Dopp in a panel moderated by Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden as they debate these questions. Featuring: Mark Dopp, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, North American Meat Institute U.S. Congressman Brad Finstad, (MN-01) Joe Maxwell, President, Board of Directors, Farm Action (Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

Two cases involving NetChoice, a company that represents social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok, were heard and decided by the Supreme Court this term. Both cases concern issues of free speech and social media platforms. In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenged Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenged the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Florida, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, creating a Circuit split. In light of that split the Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral argument in both cases on February 26, 2024. On July 1, 2024, a 9-0 court released its decision vacating both judgments based on a lack of "proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges" and remanding them for reconsideration. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications. Featuring: Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst

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