FedSoc Forums

In this two-for-one Teleforum, we covered two cases with questions concerning criminal law and procedure that are set to be argued before the Court. On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. Two issues were presented to the Court by this case.One, whether, when there are multiple charges associated with a trial, lack of venue as to one count requires vacatur of the convictions for other counts?Two, what is the proper remedy when someone is tried in an improper venue? Is the government’s failure to prove venue equal to an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, or can the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue?The next day, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. In it, the Court considered whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.In this recorded webinar, we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court in these two cases, united by the Court before which they are set to be argued and the fact they pose questions of proper procedure in criminal cases. Featuring: --Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the Supreme Court is considering "Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act."Following oral arguments in the case, IP expert Adam Mathews joined us to break down the case and answer audience questions.Featuring:--Adam Mathews, State Representative, Ohio, and Attorney, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge

Although a right to trial is enshrined in the American Constitution, practically the nation’s criminal justice system now resolves almost all cases through plea bargaining. This has raised many questions, including whether innocent people are effectively coerced into pleading guilty, whether similarly situated defendants are treated equally, and whether there is enough transparency to evaluate the system’s effectiveness and correct injustices. In February 2023, a task force assembled by the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association released a report that made numerous recommendations for changing current policy and practice on plea bargaining. Amid a system struggling with COVID-era backlogs and rates of serious crimes that largely remain above 2019 levels, are there ways to bolster the effective availability of the right to trial without jeopardizing public safety or requiring an unrealistic increase in system capacity? Featuring:--Clark Niely, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute--Kent Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney, Pinal County, Arizona--[Moderator] Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice

In 2022, the Florida Legislature passed a bill titled the Individual Freedom Act. The bill is better known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act, or the Stop WOKE Act, and it has become a cultural flashpoint across the country. The bill seeks to “protect individual freedoms and prevent discrimination in the workplace and in public schools.” While the bill explicitly authorizes “age-appropriate” classroom discussion of topics such as sexism, slavery, and racial discrimination, it prohibits instruction meant to “indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of individual freedom or state academic standards.” The bill went into effect on July 1, 2022, and it places new restrictions on Florida’s public schools, colleges, universities, and corporations.Proponents of the bill argue that aspects of progressive ideology – often referred to as wokeness – are being aggressively pushed on students, parents, and employees, and the effect is tantamount to ideological oppression and indoctrination. Opponents of the bill say that the Stop WOKE Act infringes upon freedom of speech and thought. Several opponents – including prominent organizations like the ACLU and FIRE – have taken to the courts to block or pare back the bill’s influence.Ryan Newman serves as General Counsel to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and he is responsible for driving Florida’s litigation defense of the Stop WOKE Act in cases such as Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, Novoa v. Diaz, and Honeyfund.com Inc. v. DeSantis. Featuring:--Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

On Monday, March 27, 2023 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Hansen. At issue in Hansen is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), a federal criminal statute that prohibits encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial or financial benefit sometimes termed “the encouragement provision”, violates the First Amendment.Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts. Hansen follows on the heels of another case with similar questions. Back in 2020, in United States v. Sinening-Smith, SCOTUS reversed a Ninth Circuit Court decision that attempted to strike down the encouragement provision on the grounds the decision attempted to address an issue that was outside of the issue before the court. Hansen now brings those same constitutional issues to the fore. In this Courthouse Steps webinar, we will broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the same day it is argued. Featuring:--Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

This case presents an intersection between Native Americans’ free exercise rights and the Government’s power to regulate its territories. In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a trade of land between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. Resolution Copper gave the government 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands. In exchange, the Government gave Resolution Copper 2,400 acres containing the third largest copper deposit in the world.Within the 2,400-acre tract of land is Chi’chil Bildagoteel, or “Oak Flat”, a place of central spiritual importance to the Western Apache. It is the direct corridor to their Creator and the site of numerous religious ceremonies. If Resolution Copper is given the land, the religious site will be destroyed and turned into a mine.Apache Stronghold sued to prohibit the land trade under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause, and under a theory that the trade violates the Government’s trust obligation to the Apaches. The United States argued that pursuant to its constitutional authority over the territories and existing caselaw that the trade was lawful.The District Court rejected a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. And the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc this month.Apache Stronghold again presses its three claims. Centrally, it argues that the United States has substantially burdened the Apaches’ religious exercise by authorizing the transfer and destruction of Oak Flat—rendering their religious exercise impossible.The United States argues a line of precedent—culminating in Employment Division v. Smith—bar Apache Stronghold’s claims. The Government particularly relies on Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association, which permitted the U.S. Forest Service to develop a road through government land that would traverse a tribal holy site, stating, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” The United States argues that RFRA and the remainder of Apache Stronghold’s claims do not undermine the holding in Lyng.At stake is a religious site of central importance to a native tribe that cannot be replaced and development of the third largest copper deposit in the world.In this recorded webinar, an excellent debate team discuss this en banc hearing. On behalf of Apache Stronghold, Luke Goodrich, VP and Senior Counsel for Becket, who is serving as lead counsel for Apache Stronghold. And defending the United States’ position, Anthony J. Ferate, who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Support of Appellee United States.Featuring: --Luke Goodrich, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Becket--Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP --Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts

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.Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic Intl. Inc. (March 21) - Intellectual Property, International Law; Whether the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark can bring a lawsuit for damages for infringement overseas.Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (March 21) - Litigation, E Commerce; Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (March 22) - Intellectual Property; Whether and when trademark law prohibits a spoof of a company’s brand.Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (March 27) - Intellectual Property, Medicine; When a patent applicant must provide a description of its invention that would enable a “skilled artisan” to make and use the invention, what must the applicant show to meet that requirement?Smith v. United States (March 27) - Criminal Law; What is the proper remedy – acquittal or a new trial – when an appeals court concludes that one of the counts on which a defendant was convicted was tried in the wrong place?Lora v. United States (March 28) - Criminal Law; Whether federal criminal sentencing laws require a New York man convicted for his role in a drug-trafficking murder to be sentenced to consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.Samia v. United States (March 29) - Criminal Law; Whether prosecutors violated a defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment when they admitted a confession from one of his co-defendants, redacted so that it did not use the defendant’s name.Featuring: --Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law--Prof. Stephen Ware, Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law--Robert Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP--Adam Mathews, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney, Faurecia --Robert "Bob" McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister --Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

Along with the "crypto crackdown" by financial regulators in the wake of huge cryptocurrency losses and bankruptcies, Congress is discussing crypto legislation. The House Financial Services Committee has a new Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion chaired by Congressman French Hill (R-AR). Chairman Hill will join us for a keynote presentation, followed by an expert panel discussion. Among other questions, the webinar will consider: Will there be crypto legislation? What might it and what should it provide or not provide? What will be the most contentious issues? What related oversight should Congress provide?J.C. Boggs will moderate the program and the panel will feature Dina Ellis Rochkind, Alexandra Harrison Gaiser, Patrick McCarty, and Patrick Daugherty.

In 1982, the U.S. Marine Corps discovered that one quarter of the water wells on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has estimated that as many as one million military and civilian staff and their families might have been exposed to contaminated drinking water between the early 1950s and late 1980s.The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 – one section of the larger PACT Act – was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 10, 2022. The law provides veterans who served on Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 with two years to bring claims in the Eastern District of North Carolina related to this toxic water exposure. Over 15,000 claims have already been filed and some news outlets have suggested that there could be as many as 500,000 CLJA claims.Among many interesting topics presented by these claims are fees. Personal injury law firms stand ready to collect billions. The American Tort Reform Association estimates that firms have spent more than $41 million on targeted advertisements. However, there is some debate about if a fee cap is in place. A 2021 version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act limited attorneys’ fees to between 20 and 25%, but the 2022 version does not contain such a provision. While some firms are prepared to charge up to 40%, others think the Federal Tort Claims Act will cover the Camp Lejeune cases and limit fees to 20% of claimant recovery.In this recorded webinar, legal experts provide an update and a discussion of the many issues associated with the large scale litigation.Featuring:--Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP--Prof. Paul Figley, Professor of Legal Rhetoric, American University Washington College of Law--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman

President Biden has directed the Department of Education to implement a national program of blanket cancellation of federal student loans. The Department has complied by announcing two debt-cancellation programs. The first program—a plan to cancel $10,000 of loans per debtor—proceeds under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES) Act. On February 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard argument in two cases challenging the Department’s claim of statutory authority for this program (Nebraska v. Biden and Department of Education v. Brown).Less well known—but equally significant—is the Department’s other loan-cancellation program. This program is being accomplished through settlement of a nationwide APA class-action that was brought solely to compel the Department to restart lawful adjudications of “borrower-defense” claims. Instead of defending against this limited claim, the Biden Administration has instead entered a settlement agreement that dispenses with adjudication and automatically cancels billions in loans for hundreds of thousands of debtors. The Department claims it has authority for this blanket loan-cancellation program under the Higher Education Act—a claim that would apply to all loans even outside of litigation. A federal district court approved the settlement in November, but several intervening educational institutions have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.Is this settlement legal? Is it an example of the reemergence of the sue-and-settle practices of the Obama Administration? How does this case intersect with Nebraska and Brown? This recorded webinar features a discussion with Jesse Panuccio, who represents one of the appealing intervenors.Featuring:--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP