FedSoc Forums

This summer, the state of Arizona passed a law that will prohibit the ability of the public and press to video record police officers in certain situations. Alexa L. Gervasi, the Executive Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, will join this program to argue that this law is a prior restraint on free speech that does not pass judicial review under strict scrutiny. Larry H. James, the Managing Partner of Crabbe Brown & James LLP, will offer his perspective in defense of the new law. In addition to the constitutional implications of this restriction on recording, our speakers will explore what this regulation could mean for the future of policing.Featuring:--Alexa L. Gervasi, Executive Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution--Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP--Moderator: Stephen Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Stuart Reges is an award-winning professor at the University of Washington in the Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. The Allen School encourages professors to include on their syllabi a statement recognizing that the land on which the university sits was once owned by indigenous tribes. Professor Reges disagreed with the University’s “Indigenous Land Acknowledgement Statement” — instead, he challenged his students and fellow faculty to consider the utility and performative nature of land acknowledgments by including a modified statement on his syllabus.The University's administrators later concluded that the professor's viewpoint was “offensive” and “inappropriate,” and created a "shadow" section of Professor Reges's class. The school next launched an investigation of the professor under a policy that prohibits “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” speech. The investigation has been ongoing since March 2, 2022, and carries the threat of termination. On July 13, 2022, Reges sued University of Washington officials to challenge the investigation and punishment as viewpoint discriminatory, and the policy as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Representing Reges is Josh Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who joins us to discuss the status of the case.Featuring:--Joshua Bleisch, Faculty Legal Defense Fund Fellow, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

In recent years, universities have increasingly required 'diversity statements' from faculty seeking jobs, tenure, or promotion. But statements describing faculty's contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion are also increasingly under attack. Criticisms first made in tweets and blog posts have expanded into prominent opinion pieces and, more recently, law review articles. These attacks are having an effect. Within universities, faculty-wide resolutions for and against mandatory diversity statements have been called and academic freedom committees have been asked to intervene. Outside universities, lawyers are recruiting plaintiffs to challenge diversity statement requirements in court.Join our experts in a discussion on Professor Brian Soucek’s recent article in the UC Davis Law Review about these diversity statements fleshing out the criticisms and developing a framework to address if universities can require diversity statements without violating either the Constitution or academic freedom.Featuring:--Professor Brian Soucek, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Fellow, UC Davis School of Law--Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging allegedly unconstitutional race discrimination in the American Rescue Plan’s provision to offer loan forgiveness based on racial categories. The plaintiffs are twelve farmers and ranchers from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Oregon, and Kentucky. Each plaintiff would be eligible for the federal loan forgiveness program, but for their race. In response, U.S. District Judge William Griesbach issued a temporary restraining order on June 10, 2021 halting payments. Other cases subsequently resulted in similar orders.These lawsuits challenge the extent to which the government can prefer one racial group over another based on allegations of generalized societal or industry discrimination. Prior litigation had addressed allegations of particularized discrimination by the government against black farmers but this more traditional focus on discrimination and tailored remedy was thought by the administration to be inadequate. How should courts respond? Featuring: --Rick M. Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty--Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, assets of Russian oligarchs have been frozen in Western Europe and the United States. Now some leaders in Western countries urge that these assets be assigned to reconstruction efforts in Ukraine. Are there legal limits on such diversion of foreign-owned property? Should that matter to U.S. policy? Is this rough justice or dangerous precedent? Our legal experts will discuss these questions on this timely webinar.Featuring:--Dean Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC; Former Vice-Chairman and Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission--Prof. Paul B. Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, David H. Ibbeken '71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law--Moderator: Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Professor Nelson Lund will moderate a debate between Professors Adam Winkler and Robert Leider on the Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment decision. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In justifying its holding, the Supreme Court engaged in a methodical historical inquiry, grappling with sometimes contradictory historical facts. In future cases, the Supreme Court also instructed lower courts to examine text, history, and tradition when deciding Second Amendment claims. The Court explicitly rejected the interest-balancing approach previously adopted by most courts of appeals. Bruen may prove to be a watershed decision in constitutional and criminal law. Did Bruen correctly decide that the right to bear arms applies outside the home? Will Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test be a viable means of analyzing modern gun control laws that have no historical analogue? And now that the right to bear arms outside the home has been recognized as a constitutional right, what effects will Bruen have on state laws criminalizing the carrying of weapons and on police stop-and-frisk policies? Featuring:--Adam Winkler, Connell Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law--Robert Leider, Assistant Professor, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School--Moderator: Nelson Lund, University Professor, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

After years of tragic deaths and through a global pandemic, some experts contend that the opioid epidemic has only gotten worse. Three noted voices in the field provide their thoughts and opinions on the opioid crisis, how it began, why it persists, and how it finally can be solved.Featuring:--Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute --Joseph Grogan, Founder, Fire Arrow Consulting, and Former Director, United States Domestic Policy Council--Paul Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation--Moderator: Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP and Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi

Mark Paoletta and Michael Pack have co-edited a new book, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, which is a follow-on project of Michael Pack’s very successful 2020 documentary of the same name. In making the film, Pack interviewed Justice Thomas for 25 hours. Created Equal is a book-length interview taken from those 25 hours of interviews, where Justice Thomas discusses in an informal and moving way his remarkable life – from being born into abject poverty in 1948 in the segregated Deep South of Georgia to being a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. He talks about the challenges he faced and overcame, including his contentious confirmation battle in 1991. 95% of what is in the book did not appear in the film.Co-editor Mark Paoletta joined us for a discussion of one of our most interesting justices. Mr. Paoletta served as a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office in the George H.W. Bush administration and worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas. He is a partner at Schaerr-Jaffe.Featuring:--Mark Paoletta, Partner, Schaerr-Jaffe

On June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. The Court held that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:David Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson DunnAnthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLPJason Manion, Associate Attorney, Gibson DunnJennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

The Supreme Court decided multiple administrative law cases this term, but in no majority opinion did the Court cite its landmark 1984 precedent Chevron v. NRDC. The lack of citation to Chevron raises an important question: Is the Court ignoring the Chevron doctrine (which provides for judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)? Whatever the status of Chevron at the Supreme Court, lower courts continue to apply the doctrine. Scholars have lodged thoughtful critiques of Chevron's rule, but after October Term 2021, its continued vitality is unclear. This panel analyzes what's next for Chevron, with a particular focus on what Chevron's conspicuous absence in the Court's opinions this term might mean for the doctrine's future. Featuring:--Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School--Yaakov M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day--Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy