FedSoc Forums

Please join us for the latest installment in our Talks with Authors Series, in which author Stephen Soukup sits down for an interview with Eileen O’Connor about his book The Dictatorship of Woke Capital. Perhaps you recall learning that the obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits, thus preserving and increasing shareholder value. Perhaps you even thought that was still a top priority of corporate executives. But more likely, if you hadn’t been aware of it already, it came to your attention during the last year or two that corporations were inserting themselves into public policy debates, and making decisions about where and how to operate based on considerations far removed from their businesses. In The Dictatorship of Woke Capital, Stephen Soukup describes how the focus of corporate attention went from shareholder value to woke capital. He takes us step by step through the evolution, from its beginning. He identifies the people and groups who have played and continue to play a major role in the development of woke capital. Published by Encounter Books, The Dictatorship of Woke Capital is available at its website, as well as Scribd, Amazon, and wherever books are sold.Featuring:-- Stephen Soukup, Author, The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business -- Interviewer: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC

On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and dismissed the federal government's suit against Texas in United States v. Texas. The Court held 8-1 in Jackson that plaintiff abortion providers can pursue claims against licensing officials.Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined in full by Justices Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, with Justice Thomas joining as to all but one part. Justices Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined, while Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part which Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined.A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join us to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law---This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra. One of the certified questions asks the Court to revisit the famed Chevron doctrine which has been subjected to much criticism since its implementation. The petitioners ask the Court whether Chevron allows the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates for hospital groups and whether 42 U.S.C. 1395I(t)(12) precludes the petitioners' suit. Rich Samp of the New Civil Liberties Alliance which filed an amicus brief in the litigation before the Court joins us to discuss the oral argument. Featuring: Richard A. Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Student Member, Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group Executive Committee; 3L Student, Harvard Law School ---To register, click the link above.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual Americans to keep a handgun in their homes for self-defense. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court is expected to decide whether New York violated the Second Amendment by denying the applications of two law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon in public.Oral argument in this case was held on November 3. In this webinar, two Second Amendment experts will discuss the arguments, as well as the effects that the decision, whichever way it goes, might have on government power to enforce the criminal law.Featuring: Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason Univeristy, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolAdam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Moderator: Nelson Lund, Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School ---To register, click the link above.

On December 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carson v. Makin on the question of whether a state violates the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction.We are joined by two experts, one of whom will argue the case before the Supreme Court for the petitioner, to discuss the legal issues involved and the implications of oral arguments. Featuring:Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeDaniel Mach, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief---This Zoom event is open to the press and public.

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.This distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed.You can view our pre-argument webinar here.Featuring:Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, BerkeleyProf. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center, Independent Women's Forum

The ongoing, high-decibel, public debate over vaccine mandates has entered its litigation phase. Please join us for a conversation with one of the country’s leading vaccine and civil rights litigators, Aaron Siri of Siri|Glimstad. Mr. Siri will provide a litigation update and summarize the issues and strategic challenges facing litigators, their clients, and policy makers. Our host will be Robert Destro, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Professor of Law at The Catholic University of America. Together, they will discuss the evidentiary and human rights issues facing lawyers who plan to challenge the public health regime.Featuring:Aaron Siri, Managing Partner, Siri Glimstad Moderator: Robert Destro, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America---To receive a copy of the documents referenced during this webinar, please email pg@fed-soc.org with the subject line "Vaccination Mandate Documents."

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.In defending its ban on abortions after 15-weeks gestation, Mississippi asks the Court to overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, arguing that the cases were egregiously wrong because a right to abortion has no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. Mississippi further argues that the various frameworks have proved hopelessly unworkable; that the cases have inflicted severe damage on democratic self-government, on the country, and on the understanding that the Supreme Court is a neutral arbiter of the law; that they have been overtaken by a better legal and factual understanding; that reliance interests do not support upholding Roe and that accordingly stare decisis principles counsel in favor of overruling them. Respondents argue that the viability standard is the central line that underpins these rulings, and that the Court's decision to retain it in Casey, in the face of repeated requests to abandon it both in the years leading up to Casey and in Casey itself, makes the bar for overruling it particularly high. They further note stare decisis's centrality to the rule of law and to public confidence in the courts. They add that the viability standard is well-grounded in the Constitution and that a right to abortion remains critical to women's equal participation in the workforce.Our panel explored these and other arguments and considered whether overruling these decisions, maintaining the viability line in some form, or some other approach best serves the rule of law.Featuring:Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, BerkeleyProf. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, formerly U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Join us for the third episode of the Federalist Society's Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts will convene to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket and debrief oral arguments from the previous month. During the first two weeks of December, the Justices will hear ten oral arguments on cases including abortion, religious freedom, habeas, Chevron deference, and the Civil Rights Act.Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation - Medicare (Nov 29)Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C. – compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act for victims of discrimination/emotional distress (Nov. 30)American Hospital Association v. Becerra – Chevron deference and preclusion, HHS (Nov. 30)Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – abortion (Dec. 1)Patel v. Garland – immigration, federal courts jurisdiction (Dec. 6)Hughes v. Northwestern University – ERISA, breach of fiduciary duty (Dec. 6)United States v. Taylor – Hobbs Act, criminal law, armed robbery (Dec. 7)CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe – disparate impact, discrimination, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Dec. 7)Carson v. Makin – religious freedom (Dec. 8)Shinn v. Ramirez – habeas and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Dec. 8)Featuring:-- Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, The University of Notre Dame Law School -- Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute -- Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law -- Brandon J. Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein -- Moderator: Adam Liptak, The New York Times

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced. A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.