FedSoc Forums

Speech First, Inc. v. Sands concerns a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) policy that created a bias response team and protocol where students could report bias incidents. Under this policy, reported incidents would be reviewed and possibly reported to the administration for a formal reprimand. In 2021, Speech First, Inc., a group that focuses on students' freedom of speech on university campuses, filed suit against Virginia Tech on behalf of several students for chilling their right to speech through the bias incident policies. The district court hearing the case ruled in favor of Virginia Tech finding that the Bias Incident policy didn’t specifically outline any particular speech that was chilled for the students being represented and thus the policy wasn’t found to chill speech. In 2022, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, gave judgment with respect to the Bias Policy claims vacated, and remanded the case to the 4th Circuit with instructions to dismiss those claims as moot under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. Multiple Justices, including Justices Thomas and Alito, filed dissents. Join us for a litigation update on this important case in light of those developments. Featuring: Abigail Smith, Amicus Attorney, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Moderator) Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom

In Better Money: Gold, Fiat, Or Bitcoin?, monetary expert Lawrence H. White delves into the timely debate surrounding alternative currencies amidst the backdrop of constant inflation in the fiat currency world. Better Money explains and analyzes gold, fiat dollars, and Bitcoin standards to evaluate their relative merits and capabilities as currencies. It addresses common misunderstandings of the gold standard and Bitcoin, and scrutinizes the evolution of currency, particularly the interplay between market and government roles. White provides provocative analysis of which standard might ultimately provide better money, and argues that we need a market competition among them. Please join us as Professor Lawrence White joins discussants Alexandra Gaiser and Bert Ely, and moderator Alex Pollock to discuss Better Money. Featuring: Prof. Lawrence H. White, George Mason University Alexandra Gaiser, General Counsel, Strive Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc. Moderator: Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court heard Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson. The Court considered whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot. Legal questions involved in the case include whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing" or requires an additional act of Congress, whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection, and if so whether Donald Trump participated in that insurrection, and whether the President is an "officer of the United States" as meant by Section 3. On March 4, 2024 the Court issued a 9-0 decision overturning the Colorado Supreme Court’s December ruling, holding that President Trump is not precluded from appearing on Colorado’s presidential primary ballot. Featuring: Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

On February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. The following questions are presented – (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule. Please join our panel of experts as they break down the case and its developments after oral argument. Featuring: Megan Herzog, Partner, Donahue & Goldberg LLP Matt Kuhn, Solicitor General, Kentucky Viktoria Seale, Regulatory Affairs Director, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Matthew Z. Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth

Garland v. Cargill concerns 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 raises questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the ATF’s authority. Bump stocks are devices attached to semi-automatic firearms to increase the rate of fire. In 2019, the ATF issued a rule that bumpstocks themselves were machineguns, and thus subject to the rules of Title 26, which marked a significant shift in federal policy. Michael Cargill, the owner of Central Texas Gun Works, challenged this reclassification, arguing it was an unconstitutional overreach by the ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Fifth Circuit of Appeals ruled in his favor. A significant circuit split on this issue now exists, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits holding that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits have held that they are. The oral argument in Cargill is set to be heard before the Supreme Court on February 28, 2024. Join us the next day as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute (Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeks comments on the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, which sets out the factors that an agency may consider when deciding whether to exercise Bayh-Dole march-in rights. The information received will inform NIST and the Interagency Working Group for Bayh-Dole (IAWGBD) in developing a final framework document that may be used by a funding agency when making a march-in decision. This panel seeks to answer what the new framework is while also debating the pros and cons. This FedSoc Forum aims for participants to have a better understanding of this proposed policy change, be able to assess the impact should it be enacted, and be motivated to actively engage in the ongoing debate.

On February 21, the Supreme Court unanimously decided McElrath v. Georgia, holding that a jury’s verdict that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity of malice murder constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury’s other verdicts. McElrath concerned the case of Damian McElrath, who in 2017 was tried for malice murder, aggravated assault, and felony murder Under Georgia Law, in a case where a defendant is claiming insanity at the time of the crime, the jury can render one of four possible verdicts: Guilty, Guilty but Mentally Ill, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, or Not Guilty. The jury rendered a split verdict, finding McElrath not guilty by reason of insanity on the malice murder charge and guilty but mentally ill on the felony murder and aggravated assault charges. McElrath challenged his guilty but mentally ill conviction as repugnant to his acquittals. The Georgia Supreme Court, instead of overturning his conviction, vacated both the conviction and the acquittal and remanded the case for a retrial. McElrath then filed a plea in bar asserting that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited the State from subjecting him to a second trial on the malice murder charge. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November of 2023. Please join us for a post-decision Courthouse steps program where we will break down and analyze this recent decision concerning double jeopardy and criminal law. Featuring: Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation

The First Step Act of 2018, passed as the result of bi-partisan efforts during the Trump administration, aimed to reduce the population of those in federal prison and to limit some federal prison sentences. Over the years some have contended the act is working well, while others argue it has only partially delivered on its goals or it was flawed from the start. Now, as the act recently celebrated its 5-year anniversary, join us for a panel discussing the First Step Act, its impact, legacy, and future. Featuring: Stephanie Kennedy, Policy Director, Council on Criminal Justice Rafael A. Mangual, Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy Contributing Editor, City Journal, The Manhattan Institute (Moderator) Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

Two cases involving NetChoice, a company that represents social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok will be heard at the Supreme Court this term. Both cases concern issues of free speech and social media platforms. In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenges 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. The lower district court found that the law did not stand up to strict scrutiny. Additionally, the court found that this law didn’t serve a legitimate state interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this ruling. In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenges 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. The lower district court found the sections unconstitutional and placed an injunction on the two sections. The Fifth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that HB 20 doesn’t regulate the speech of the platforms, but instead protects the speech of users and regulates the platform's conduct. Both cases are set to be heard at the Supreme Court on February 26, 2024. Join us as we break down and analyze how Oral argument went the same day. Featuring: Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst

The U.S. antitrust agencies have recently proposed changes to the HSR merger filing process, broadening the scope of review beyond consumer and competitive effects to workers and other non-competition factors. Merging parties would also be required to prepare written responses to questions related to the transaction, bringing the U.S. more into line with filing requirements in certain foreign merger control regimes like the EU. The additional volume and scope of information contained in merging parties’ HSR filings would also allow the antitrust agencies to potentially apply more rigorous scrutiny of proposed transactions at an earlier stage because the information provided likely will take considerable time for the agency to review. This panel will discuss how in-house counsel is navigating these changes. Featuring: Kirstie Nicholson, Global Competition Counsel, BHP Gil Ohana, former Senior Director, Antitrust & Competition, Cisco Roman Reuter, Senior Counsel, International Competition Affairs, Deutsche Telekom AG Moderator: Chris Wilson, Partner, Gibson Dunn