FedSoc Forums

In 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The goal was to resolve all current and future claims fairly and efficiently. Opposition filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing it does not serve a valid restructuring purpose and suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith. In February 2022, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL, holding that LTL’s filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed Chief Judge Kaplan and narrowly held in favor of claimants. The case is now under appeal for en banc review by the Third Circuit. Given the enormous national significance of the issue for corporate liability and civil justice, this case may advance to the Supreme Court for further adjudication.In this recorded webinar a panel of bankruptcy law experts discuss the Third Circuit ruling, its impact, significance, and the path forward, including how to assess both the split between Chief Judge Kaplan and the Third Circuit. The panel discusses the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value and discuss the Third Circuit’s ruling in light of other Circuits that are reviewing similar legal questions. The panel will review core questions that the Third Circuit left unanswered and share their expert perspectives on the ruling’s precedent and what it may mean for mass tort litigation going forward.Featuring:--Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School--Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law

In December 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA). The bill (1) repeals section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which permitted states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages created in other states; (2) forbids those acting “under of state law” to withhold recognition of marriages created in other states on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin; (3) creates mechanisms to enforce that prohibition; and (4) requires the federal government to recognize marriages validly created in one or more states. The RFMA also includes provisions relating to religious liberty.Supporters of the bill claimed that portions of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization raised the specter of the Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage). They argued that the bill would be needed in the event the Court ever overturned Obergefell. Debate centered on (1) whether legislation to protect same-sex marriage was necessary; (2) the extent to which it would threaten the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and (3) the efficacy of the religious liberty provisions in the bill.Now in the wake of the RFMA passing, those discussions continue. To what degree does the RFMA affect or possibly impinge on religious liberty? Has anything really changed, or is this simply the codification of the status quo? Is this a statute ripe for abuse that threatens the exercise of religious liberty, or are the warnings issued concerning it perhaps overblown?Our panel of experts discussed these questions and others in this panel analyzing the Respect for Marriage Act, what it is, and what it means for religious liberty.Featuring:--Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law / Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law--Gregory S. Baylor, Senior Counsel & Director of the Center for Religious Schools, Alliance Defending Freedom--[Moderator] Matt Clark, President, Alabama Center for Law and Liberty

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) reports to the Secretary of Labor and is tasked with overseeing federal contractors and subcontractors ensuring they adhere to nondiscrimination laws and regulations. OFCCP’s priorities and budget tend to vary greatly between presidential administrations. The Biden Administration has announced a number of reforms since 2020 including a focus on parental leave policies, intersectional discrimination, affirmative action, and more. How have these reforms fared? And what does the future hold? Craig Leen, OFCCP Director under President Trump, and Shirley Wilcher, OFCCP Deputy Assistant Secretary under President Clinton, will join us to discuss these questions and more. Featuring: Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates and Former Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor Shirley J. Wilcher, Executive Director, American Association for Access Equity and Diversity (AAAED) and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor [Moderator] Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association and Former Deputy Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor

Join Stephanie Taub, Bruce Cameron, Blaine Hutchinson for discussion on Groff v. Dejoy, which was recently added to the Supreme Court docket. This case highlights questions at the intersection of religious liberty and workplace accommodation. Gerald Groff alleges workplace discrimination by the U.S. Postal Service based on his faith under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. His refusal to work Sunday shifts due to Sabbath observance resulted in a penalty and sparked a contentious legal debate. Register now to stay up-to-date on this important case that has the potential to shape the future of religious liberty in the workplace.Featuring: --Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute--Bruce Cameron, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund--Blaine Hutchison, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund

Domestic and international arbitration has been the subject of considerable activity before the U.S. Supreme Court over most of the last decade. The Supreme Court’s last term (2021-2022) was no exception, with the Court deciding five arbitration-related cases, with additional cases in the Court’s current term. This program concentrated on recent and currently Supreme Court pending cases concerning international and domestic arbitration, as well as hot topics before the Circuit Courts that may rise to the Court in the near future.Featuring:--Manuel Farach, Shareholder, Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A. --Joshua B. Simmons, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP--Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper

Social media platforms have emerged as the new “town square” and a key forum for public debate, but some have questioned whether that debate is as open and robust as it should be. On the other hand, some worry that efforts to regulate social media platforms may themselves crimp debate. At the heart of the discussion is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A panel of experts discussed what Section 230 permits and doesn’t permit—a question now before a number of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google.Featuring:--Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Fellow, Free Speech & Peace, Stand Together--Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation--Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute--Moderator: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

In an abrupt shift away from decades of tradition, Ukraine’s current National Bar arose from the adoption of a new model in 2013. The “Law On the Bar and Practice of Law” emerged amid recurring east-west tensions and pressures for domestic reform. This legislation produced an all-Ukrainian, non-governmental, non-profit organization that promotes adjudicatory reform. It has been recognized by the International Bar Association and the European Council of Bars and Law Societies.In this podcast, Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President of the Ukrainian National Bar Association has a conversation led by George Bogden regarding the origin of this independent body. Featuring: --Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President, Ukrainian National Bar Association--Moderator: Dr. George Bogden, George F. Kennan Fellow, Kennan Institute, and Olin Fellow, Columbia Law School.

The federal Clean Water Act regulates discharges to “navigable waters,” which the Act defines as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” For decades the Environmental Protection Agency interpreted “waters of the US” very broadly through regulations, but in the past 20 years the agency lost two Supreme Court cases that have required amendments to the regulations. With a third significant decision pending from the Court in Sackett v. EPA, the agency just released the fourth major revision to the regulations defining “navigable waters” in the last eight years. This panel discussed what is old and what is new in the Biden Administration’s bid to finally capture what “waters of the US” means, and what impact the Sackett decision may have when it comes down.Featuring: --Kevin Minoli, Partner, Alston & Bird--[Moderator] Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel

Cy pres is the practice of awarding class-action settlement funds to third-party organizations when distribution of settlement funds directly to class members is considered impractical. Champions of cy pres awards – which can amount to tens of millions of dollars – claim that the practice directly aids the causes in question. They also note its convenience and the importance of deterrence. Cy pres critics contend that such awards lead to conflicts of interest, the failure of class attorneys to prioritize class recovery, and First Amendment concerns over the compelled support of political beneficiaries. By a 6-5 vote, the Eighth Circuit recently declined en banc review of an opinion affirming approval of a Monsanto settlement that paid $16 million to cy pres while leaving 98% of the class uncompensated. The Second Circuit affirmed approval of a settlement with Navient that paid the class of student debtors nothing with all settlement proceeds going to a few nonprofits affiliated with the teachers' union funding the class action. Both courts rejected objectors' First Amendment and Rule 23 arguments, and both cases are now the subject of cert petitions.Ted Frank, who argued Frank v. Gaos and is counsel of record in St. John v. Jones and Yeatman v. Hyland, and Brian Fitzpatrick, author of The Conservative Case for Class Actions, will debate the pros, cons, and legality of cy pres and discuss possible Supreme Court review.Featuring:--Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation & Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute--Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School

In 2017, ATF agents placed a surveillance camera on a pole across the street from Daphne Moore’s home in Massachusetts. They suspected Moore’s daughter of dealing drugs and guns.They watched the house for eight months until they obtained enough evidence to get a warrant. The warrant led to a prosecution. Moore and her daughter moved to suppress the evidence. The district court granted this motion but the First Circuit later reversed.Now, Moore and her daughter are asking the Supreme Court to decide “[w]hether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search.” A nearly identical certiorari petition arose from the Seventh Circuit a year ago but was denied. The Federalist Society covered that petition on a previous teleforum featuring a debate about whether the word “search” in the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted in accord with the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test or in accord with the word’s plain meaning.In this program, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney, Robert Frommer, provides a litigation update on this interesting Fourth Amendment question and the petition before the Court. The Institute for Justice filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant the petition for certiorari.Featuring: --Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice --Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts