FedSoc Forums

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are not new, but they have made rapid advances in recent years and attracted the attention of policymakers and observers from all points on the political spectrum. These advances have intensified concerns about AI’s potential to discriminate against select groups of Americans or to import human bias against particular ideologies. AI programs like ChatGPT learn from internet content and are liable to present opinions – specifically dominant cultural opinions – as facts. Is it inevitable that these programs will acquire and reproduce the discriminatory ideas or biases we see in humans? Because AI learns by detecting patterns in real world data, are disparate impacts unavoidable in AI systems used for hiring, lending decisions, or bail determinations? If so, how does this compare to the bias of human decision-making unaided by AI? Increasingly, laws and regulations are being proposed to address these bias concerns. But do we need new laws or are the anti-discrimination laws that already govern human decision-makers sufficient? Please join us as an expert panel discusses these questions and more.

Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association d/b/a Concordia Preparatory School poses a question of whether Title IX applies to schools that do not receive federal financial aid.Former students of Concordia Preparatory School, a private school, sued Concordia Prep. under Title IX alleging that the school had not adequately addressed complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Concordia Prep. argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because, as a private school that did not receive federal financial assistance, it was not subject to Title IX. Judge Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland rejected that argument, instead holding that, because the school received a federal tax exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, it was therefore subject to Title IX because it is a 501(c)(3) organization, regardless of the fact the school does not otherwise receive direct federal aid, nor any financial aid from the U.S. Department of Education.Traditionally, independent schools that do not receive federal financial aid have not been considered to be subject to Title IX’s requirements. This decision could substantively expand the number of schools which are interpreted to be subject to Title IX. The case is currently on appeal. Mary Margaret Beecher of Napa Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to discuss the case, the nature of the litigation, and the possible effects of this decision. Featuring:--Mary Margaret Beecher, Vice President and Executive Director, Napa Legal Institute--(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

The regulatory environment in the United States is often complex. State and federal laws sometimes contradict each other. The transition of the American Presidency from one political party to another can lead to rapid and dramatic changes in the regulatory landscape. Even transfers of power between administrations of the same party or shifting priorities of one administration can cause significant changes in regulation. This phenomenon of swift changes in regulatory policy is sometimes referred to as regulatory whiplash. In this recorded webinar, an expert panel discussed regulation and regulatory whiplash in the context of civil rights.Featuring:--Will Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation--Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University--[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

On July 4, 2023, a preliminary injunction was issued in Missouri v. Biden (Western District of Louisiana, 3:22-CV-01213). At issue is the constitutionality of alleged collusion between various federal government agencies and social media companies. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants – including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Secretary Xavier Becerra, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and numerous other key federal officials – violated the First Amendment by attempting to suppress protected speech. Defendants have described the speech in question as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.Some observers are calling the case a major battleground for the future of internet speech. In this recorded webinar Harmeet K. Dhillon and Casey Mattox delivered an update on recent events. Featuring:--Harmeet K. Dhillon, CEO, Center for American Liberty & Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.--[Moderator] Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

In his newly released book We May Dominate the World: Ambition, Anxiety, and the Rise of the American Colossus, Sean A. Mirski tells the story of how the United States asserted its growing power in the Western hemisphere in the century following the Civil War. Sean Mirski joined us to discuss this chapter of America's history and to share the lessons that we can draw from it as China and other states seek hegemony within their own regions today. Featuring:--Sean A. Mirski, Senior Associate, Arnold & Porter--Moderator: Daniel G. West, Director, SCF Partners

As wireless devices become critical to our daily lives, the process of allocating and managing electromagnetic spectrum rights has become more important but also more contested. Breakdowns in the federal spectrum coordination process and the inability to free up enough spectrum for commercial use threaten American leadership in wireless technology and limit the benefits Americans can get from their wireless devices.Two former National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) administrators joined us for a discussion of how the NTIA makes spectrum policy and what reforms are needed to ensure effective federal policy that advances both federal and commercial interests.Featuring:--Hon. John Kneuer, President and Founder, JKC Consulting LLC; Former Administrator, NTIA--Hon. David Redl, Founder and President, Salt Point Strategies; Former Administrator, NTIA--Moderator: Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP--Moderator: Joe Kane, Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

On Friday, June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Biden v. Nebraska. The case arose after President Biden enacted a plan to cancel between $10,000 and $20,000 in student loans for qualified borrowers through executive action. The Biden Administration argued that the Secretary of Education was granted the authority to forgive student loans in the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education the authority to establish a student loan forgiveness program discharging approximately $430 billion in student loans and affecting nearly all borrowers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court’s opinion; Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion focused primarily on the Major Questions Doctrine; Justice Kagan filed the dissenting opinion.In this recorded webinar, Jesse Panuccio discussed the decision.Featuring:--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

On Thursday, June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the United States owes no “affirmative duty” to the Navajo Nation to secure water, reversing a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The majority held that the 1868 Treaty of Bosque Redondo did not establish a federal obligation to provide water. The decision hinged on the way the court framed the Nation's claims. Accepting the federal government's argument, the majority viewed Indian treaties as establishing rights to various resources, including land, timber, minerals, and water. Each property right was seen as a "stick in the bundle of property rights that make up a reservation." Consequently, the burden was placed on the Navajo Nation to demonstrate that the treaty explicitly obligated the United States to go beyond recognizing tribal water rights. Drawing on precedents like United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Court held that the United States only owes obligations to Indian tribes as explicitly stated in treaties, statutes, or regulations. In other words, once the federal government recognizes tribal property rights through a treaty, its obligations are limited unless further enactments exist.AJ Ferate and Jennifer Weddle joined us to break down the Court’s findings. Featuring:--Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder & Co-Chair, American Indian Law Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig LLP--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP

On June 30, 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decided 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Petitioner Lorie Smith, an artist in Colorado and owner/founder of the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC. challenged Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) on the grounds it is unconstitutional, arguing, among other things, it violates her right to free speech.The Court ruled “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, a panel of experts broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision. Featuring: --Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity--Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law--[Moderator] Prof. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

In Counterman v. Colorado, the Court considered a question of free speech and criminal law: whether, in order for a statement to be categorized as a "true threat" and thus not protected under a right to free speech, the speaker must subjectively know or intend the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence. On June 27, 2023 the Court held that “The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature, but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than recklessness.”In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, where broke down and analyzed the Court’s decision. Featuring:--Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation