FedSoc Forums

In June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? How will hiring in the public and private sectors change? What about government initiatives and the public procurement process? As employers adjust their programs and new litigation progresses through the courts, lawyers are working to advise their clients for whatever may come. Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding the greater legal landscape after SFFA.

On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Moore v. United States. At issue is whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states. Professor James W. Ely and Professor Calvin H. Johnson joined us to discuss their amicus briefs examining the original public meaning of the taxing power and apportionment. The discussion was moderated by Elizabeth H. Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship at Pacific Legal Foundation.

John Malcolm and John Yoo continued their discussion of presidential power as they examine the repercussions of plea deals taken by former President Trump's allies in Georgia, Michael Cohen's testimony in the New York civil trial, and the status of the 14th Amendment disqualification trial.

Koons v. Platkin is a challenge to certain provisions of New Jersey Bill A4769/S3214 – now known as Chapter 131 – that overhauled the state’s firearms and concealed carry laws following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Among other things, the law features 25 broad categories of “sensitive places” where permit holders may not carry a firearm. Additionally, the law makes all private property presumptively a “sensitive place” and requires permit holders to obtain consent from the property owner before carrying on their property. Chapter 131 faced legal challenge immediately upon being signed into law by the Governor of New Jersey. At the District Court level, plaintiffs argued that several of the “sensitive place” restrictions plainly violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also challenged a provision that required permit holders to render their weapons inoperable while inside a moving vehicle. The State of New Jersey has maintained that Chapter 131 is consistent with the Second Amendment and the decision in Bruen. The District Court granted a TRO and later a preliminary injunction noting that certain parts of the law were “plainly unconstitutional.” The case is now being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where oral arguments were heard on October 25, 2023. Peter A. Patterson, Partner at Cooper & Kirk and counsel to plaintiffs, discussed the case.

United States v. Rahimi, set to be argued before the Supreme Court this fall, raises 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. When executing a search warrant on Texas resident Zackey Rahimi's home in relation to a series of shootings in which he was a suspect, police found a rifle and pistol. Rahimi, however, was 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 5th Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and oral argument is set to go on before SCOTUS on November 7, 2023. Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two months later, The U.S. Departments of Justice and Education issued a joint guidance document addressing the decision. Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? What about government initiatives? The jury is still out, but one thing will certainly change – college admissions. How will college admissions offices across the country change their policies? What should high school students know about the changing landscape? What methods will be employed in pursuit of racial diversity? Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding college admissions after SFFA.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Culley v. Marshall (October 30) - Due Process; What test should district courts apply to determine whether a state or local government must provide a hearing to someone who has had property seized under a civil asset forfeiture law? Lindke v. Freed (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office. O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Are public officials acting as government officials, so that they can violate the First Amendment, when they block people on their personal social media accounts that they use to communicate with the public? Vidal v. Elster (November 1) - First Amendment, Intellectual Property; Does Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which bars the registration of a trademark which uses the name of another living person without that person’s permission, violate the Constitution when used to reject a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure? Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (November 6) - Fair Credit Reporting Act, Sovereign Immunity; Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act clearly waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. United States v. Rahimi (November 7) - Second Amendment; Whether a federal ban on the possession of guns by individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment. Rudisill v. McDonough (November 8) - GI Bill; Whether a veteran who has served two separate periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs. Featuring: Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation Prof. Christa Laser, Professor, Cleveland State University of Law Gary Lawkowski, Counsel, Dhillon Law Group Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Moderator: Laura Stanley, Judicial Law Clerk, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Pakistan finds itself in yet another multi-faceted crisis. In response to numerous economic challenges, including the worst inflation in Asia and the risk of default, the government is scrambling to raise funds. But the country's socio-political entities are paralyzed amidst a high-stakes tussle between former Prime Minister Imran Khan and the powerful security establishment--one that has drawn international scrutiny about Pakistan's judicial processes and the health of democratic institutions. These domestic concerns cannot be separated from Pakistani leaders' strategic balancing between the United States and China. This panel explored these and other related issues. Featuring: Sahar Khan, Research Fellow, CATO Michael Kugelman, Director, South Asia Institute, Wilson Center Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Student Liaison, International & National Security Law Practice Group

Which Test is it Anyway? Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Right to a Prompt Post-Seizure Hearing at the High Court. The Court will hear argument on Monday, October 30, 2023, in Culley v. Marshall. Petitioners Halima Culley and Lena Sutton contend police seized their vehicles and held those vehicles for more than a year without judicial oversight. The Respondents assert that those vehicles were seized because they were being used to traffic narcotics and then Petitioners sat on their rights. Ultimately, the state court denied the Petitioners a post-seizure hearing based on the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). The Petitioners contend the court employed the wrong test and they should have received a prompt post-seizure hearing under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the Question Presented in the case is: “In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.” Stef Cassella, CEO of Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC, and Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joined us for an an exciting preview of the oral argument in Culley. The discussion was moderated by Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation. Featuring: Stefan Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeitrure Law, LLC Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

Communities across the country are grappling with the complex issues presented by growing homeless encampments that have filled parks, blocked building entrances, and overrun sidewalks. Some observe that their ability to find effective, compassionate solutions have been impacted by the Ninth Circuit opinion in the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, et al., holding that laws regulating camping on public property constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” In a lengthy series of opinions about these purported new rights of the homeless, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, setting up a showdown in the Supreme Court where cities, law enforcement, disability rights advocates, property owners, and homeless advocates are looking for a final resolution to the important balance of Constitutional rights and Separation of Powers concerns. Featuring: William R. Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP John F. Bash, III, Partner, Quinn Emanuel [Moderator] Antoinette T. Bacon, US Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida