FedSoc Forums

On January 17, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.Halkbank, is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.This program, held on January 18, 2023 broke down and analyzed the oral argument.Featuring:--Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to clarify when and under what circumstances federal labor law preempts state tort claims for strike-related misconduct. Next week, it will hear oral arguments in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174, a case involving the intentional destruction of an employer’s property. The employer, Glacier Northwest, manufactures ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix concrete hardens quickly and must be poured on the same day it’s mixed. In August 2017, a union representing Glacier’s employees called a sudden strike. The union allegedly timed the strike so that concrete would be left to harden in Glacier’s trucks. Predictably, the concrete was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages. But state courts rejected the suit. They held that the suit was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because (a) the union’s conduct was arguably protected by federal law, and (b) the conduct fell outside an existing exception for intentional-tort claims because it involved no violence or “outrageous conduct.”On January 10, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on both of those conclusions. The central issue for the Court is whether the NLRA preempts intentional tort claims except when they’re accompanied by violence or outrageous conduct. The union argues that the state courts got it right: violence or outrageous conduct is necessary. Glacier, on the other hand, argues that violence or outrageous conduct has never been required. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has long recognized that intentional property destruction is unprotected and falls outside the NLRA’s preemptive reach.Regardless of who wins that argument, the resulting decision will likely clarify the scope of NLRA preemption. And potentially, it will offer guidance on the bounds of acceptable strike-related conduct.Join Alex MacDonald the afternoon of the oral arguments to stay informed on one of the most important cases currently before the Supreme Court. The webinar will be held on January 10 at 4:00 PM ET. Sign up today to reserve your spot.Featuring:--Alex MacDonald, Director, Future of Work and Labor Law, Instacart

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this episode are included below.In re Grand Jury (Jan. 9) - Professional Responsibility; whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the purposes behind the communication. The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (Jan. 9) - Labor Law; whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Jan. 10) - Labor Law; Whether the National Labor Relations Act impliedly preempts a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property in the course of a labor dispute.Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (Jan. 11) - Federalism; whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Jan. 17) - Immigration; whether the court of appeals correctly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.Featuring: --William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University; Co-Author, The Law of Lawyering--Tessa E. Shurr, Litigation Associate, The Fairness Center--Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law--Moderator: Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

The Biden administration has made aggressive antitrust enforcement a priority, and appointed Jonathan Kanter to be the nation’s chief antitrust law enforcer as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Though Kanter’s background is in big law, he is a leading advocate of the neo-Brandeisian school of antitrust that seeks to expand the scope and importance of antitrust. His aggressive agenda has yet to be fully revealed; however, the courts do not appear sympathetic and have handed the Division a series of defeats in recently-litigated merger challenges.At this luncheon event, Rick Rule, the head of the Antitrust Division under President Reagan (and a former partner of Kanter), probed Kanter on what he is hoping to achieve during his tenure and how he is going to deal with the skepticism of the courts.Featuring:- Hon. Jonathan S. Kanter, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice- Moderator: Hon. Charles "Rick" Rule, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP

Professors Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman will discuss the most important Supreme Court cases of all time, as featured in their new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. Plus, they will debut a new video series, including previews of Dobbs and Bruen. Featuring: Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston --- To register, please click the link above.

In early December, Prof. Eugene Volokh, Rumble Canada, and Locals Technology filed a complaint in federal court against New York Attorney General Letitia James, seeking to stop a new New York state law from taking effect. The suit challenges a recently enacted section of New York’s General Business Law, “Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited.” The new law originated, in part, as a response to a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead as the result of what is alleged to be a racially motivated crime. The law aims to restrict "hateful" speech on social media platforms and requires social media networks to “provide and maintain a clear and easily accessible mechanism for individual users to report incidents of hateful conduct.” Additionally, the networks must establish and publish a policy outlining how they will “respond [sic] and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.” The State of New York has asserted that hate speech moderation of this sort can be a useful tool in preventing hate crimes. Plaintiffs are represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and argue that the law violates the First Amendment and forces social media networks to police their users. They further submit that enforcement of the law requires a subjective determination of what constitutes “hateful conduct,” thereby instituting viewpoint discrimination and chilling constitutionally protected speech. Please join us for this Litigation Update from Prof. Eugene Volokh. Featuring: Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Founder, The Volokh Conspiracy --- To register, click the link above.

The Supreme Court has articulated that parents have the unenumerated right rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children since the 1920s in such cases as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska, Parham v. J.R. and Troxel v. Granville. However, the precise contours of the right have long been uncertain, as has the level of scrutiny to be applied. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court established a clear threshold for unenumerated rights, that they must be rooted in history and tradition and essential to ordered liberty. The Court noted that its decision does not call into question its line of cases on parental rights. Nevertheless, the question remains: do parental rights meet the Court’s threshold? Are there reasons to believe that parental rights will be affected by the Dobbs decision? The Dobbs decision comes as a new series of conflicts between parents and the state are arising in education and healthcare around the country. Many of these conflicts over ideas about gender and race. These new conflicts implicate parental rights and are raising questions for courts such as:Who has the primary responsibility for the formation of a child’s identity and values?Do parental rights extend beyond the schoolhouse gate to include instruction and policies in schools?And who gets to decide the treatment of a child’s mental health, including gender distress?These questions and more have been raised in a series of recent lawsuits against school districts over policies concerning race and gender-based curriculum and policies where challengers have invoked parental rights theories. How do those arguments square with existing doctrine? How might they extend existing doctrine?Featuring:--Professor James Dwyer, Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School--Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives and Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom --[Moderator] Professor Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law and Director, Program on Church, State & Society, University of Notre Dame Law School

The Department of Labor recently closed its open comment period for its proposed rulemaking regarding Employee or Independent Contractor Classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As such, this webinar explores what the proposed rule seeks to do, and how the affected stakeholder community has responded. In addition, the proposed rule comes out of litigation and may in fact create additional litigation in 2023. In addition, the speakers highlight other actions that impact independent workers including the NLRB's pending decision in Atlanta Opera as well as the DOL joint employer rulemaking. On this teleforum we will hear from Maury Baskin (Littler-Mendelson) who led a winning effort against the DOL in Coalition for Workforce Innovation (CWI) v. Secretary Walsh as well as the Chair of CWI, Evan Armstrong.Featuring: --Evan Armstrong, Vice President, Government Affairs, Retail Industry Leaders Association--Maury Baskin, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.

On December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Moore v. Harper. Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court’s own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections. Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the same day, December 7, 2022. Featuring: Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm’s Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute --- To register, click the link above

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a detailed report in September 2022 on the state of the U.S. Counterintelligence (CI) mission. Among other things, the report noted that the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), the nation's head agency for CI, does not have a clear mission and is limited in its authorities. The Committee further warned that NCSC's work is being hampered by bureaucracy and funding issues. The report also noted that foreign intelligence entities pose a more harmful threat to U.S. interests now than they have at any point in the past. We will discuss the report, its fallout, and the potential solutions to the problem with the former Director of NCSC, The Honorable William Evanina. Featuring: Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University William Evanina, CEO, The Evanina Group; Former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center