FedSoc Forums

It is growing practice within the business community to engage in diversity initiatives in hiring, promotion, and outside contracting. A network of interrelated state and federal laws and regulations including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and enforced by the EEOC outlaw discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin. But it may not be clear what the law permits when it comes to discrimination on the basis of race. Should preferences for race or sex be unlawful in the context of hiring, promotions, professional opportunities or contracting? How should diversity and inclusion officers navigate legal precedent in this area? Is diversity training helpful in the existing legal environment? Does functionally eliminating diversity training via government action benefit the public or create new pitfalls? Featuring: Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, Uniersity of North Carolina School of Law Jonathan Berry, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit --- To register, please click the link above.

The Biden administration has pledged to meet what it calls “the accelerating threat of climate change” with a wide-ranging campaign to discourage the production and use of fossil fuels in order to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases said to be the principal cause of global warming. The White House has directed regulatory agencies and departments across the executive branch to “tackle the climate crisis.” The administration has set a goal to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by 2035.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC’s statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? Join us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question. Featuring:--Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

Join us for a discussion between David A. Carrillo, Christina Sandefur, and Robert F. Williams moderated by Braden Boucek on Thursday, June 23 at 4:00 PM ET / 1:00 PM PT.The panelists will address the different purposes and rights guarantees within state constitutions and the federal constitution. What are the federalism implications of an increased focus on state constitutional rights, if that's really the trend? What does the map of states look like if some federal liberties roll back, and does the distribution depend on which rights roll back or expand. These topics and more will be explored by this excellent panel of knowledgeable state constitutional law experts.Featuring:David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of LawChristina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteRobert F. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Center for State Constitutional Studies, Rutgers University of School of Law[Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Since taking office in January 2021, the Biden Administration and its Executive Branch agencies have embraced the use of race in federal programs. From COVID-19 relief to other federal subsidies, the Biden Administration has purported to advance equity by specifically advancing race-based policy-making. Daniel Lennington from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty will discuss these efforts, as well as the many legal challenges against them, including those in which he and WILL are involved.

Much has been written, published and broadcast about a Divided America—especially now, with the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.Political divisions, often bitter, however, have existed since the Founding. But how can we know whether the so-called Divided America is something new, something traditional that has become more noticeable due to the ease of spreading information, or maybe a combination of the two? Join us for a special webinar presentation from Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.Featuring:--Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.Featuring:--Allyson Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Societyy

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s handgun licensing law that required New Yorkers to demonstrate a “proper cause” in order to be granted a license to carry a pistol or revolver in public. The petitioners, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, were denied licenses to carry a firearm in public after listing their generalized interest in self-defense as the reason for seeking the license. New York denied their license application because a generalized interest in self-defense failed to satisfy the state’s proper cause requirement. Both men sued, claiming that New York had violated their Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights in doing so. A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in the first major case on firearms regulation that the Court has considered in over a decade.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for the future of firearm regulation in America. Featuring:--Prof. Mark W. Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law in the Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law

In February of 2019, then General Counsel of the Department of Transportation (DOT), Steven Bradbury, issued a memo later dubbed the "Bradbury Memo" that addressed concerns about civil enforcement abuse at the agency. Parts of the memo were subsequently made into binding DOT rules. DOT asserted that these rules were designed to protect the due process rights of those who were the subject of DOT enforcement actions, including a requirement that the agency disclose all exculpatory evidence to those targeted by civil enforcement and the prohibition of “fishing expedition” investigations without sufficient evidence to support a violation.On April 2, 2021, DOT rescinded these rules without the opportunity for public comment. Thereafter Polyweave Packaging inc., a company that had been issued a civil penalty order by DOT over alleged regulatory violations, filed suit against DOT claiming the agency violated its due process rights by revoking the Bradbury Memo rules.The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of DOT, the case has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were on May 5, 2022. Please join this litigation update of Polyweave Packaging v. Buttigieg as our experts discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for administrative rulemaking and due process.Featuring:--Hon. Steven Bradbury, Attorney; Former General Counsel, Department of Transportation--Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance--Moderator: Hon. Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which commits approximately $65 billion towards broadband expansion. Wisely, Section 60104(c) of the Act directs the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress “a report on the options of the Commission for improving its effectiveness in achieving the universal service goals for broadband in light of this Act” within 270 days of enactment. Congress also invited the Commission to make “recommendations … on further actions the Commission and Congress could take to improve the ability of the Commission to achieve the universal service goals for broadband.” Last December, the FCC launched a Notice of Inquiry to begin this process. Please join us for a teleforum with industry experts to discuss the legal, economic and policy implications of this important proceeding.Featuring:--Patrick Halley, SVP, Policy & Advocacy and General Counsel, USTelecom--Alexander Minard, Vice President & State Legislative Counsel, NCTA--Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate and General Counsel, INCOMPAS--Dr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies--Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies

Senior officials in the Administration have expressed concern about cryptocurrencies being used for criminal activity and undermining the dollar as the global reserve currency. These concerns have been heightened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, evasion of sanctions including North Korean sanctions, cyberattacks, and ransomware. Others contend that blockchain transactions are easier to trace than physical cash, and that the Administration’s concerns are exaggerated and could stifle innovation. China has banned cryptocurrencies and developed its own central bank digital currency (CBDC). It appears that the digital yuan will be used by the Chinese government for surveillance purposes to closely monitor personal transactions and behavior. A number of other regimes, including Canada, have used the banking and monetary system to silence dissidents. Some say that dissidents and citizens in countries that have unstable fiat currencies have turned to bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to escape the national currency and protect their rights; other say cryptocurrencies are used by criminals and terrorists. This very timely panel will discuss whether the US can develop policies on digital assets that both protect freedom and privacy and maintain our safety from bad actors, and what the trade-offs with the dollar’s international role might be. Featuring:--Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Co-Chair, Actum LLC; Former Director, Office of Management and Budget--Hon. Kathy Kraninger, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Solidus Labs; Former Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--Michele Korver, Head of Regulatory, a16z Crypto--Norbert Michel, Vice President and Director, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute--Moderator: Dina Ellis Rochkind, Counsel, Government Affairs and Strategy, Paul Hastings