FedSoc Forums

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge's role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.Featuring:Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of LawAndrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National ReviewWilliam Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & AssociatesModerator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding--To resgister, click the link above.

Bondi v. VanDerStok concerned whether the ATF's 2022 update to its regulations under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which articulated that federal law requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of standard firearms also apply to "ghost guns" --readily convertible weapons parts or receiver kits-- exceeds the mandate of the same. The ATF argued it simply clarified what had already been true in response to the notable rise in the use of ghost guns. The challengers, including two individual gun owners and a gun advocacy organization, alleged the updated regulations exceeded the statutory authority granted to the ATF and brought a facial challenge. The Court heard oral argument on October 8, 2024.On March 26, 2025, a 7-2 Court ruled the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what its potential effects might be.Featuring:Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation --Note: this program has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/10/25, and will now be hosted on 04/11/25 at 12pm ET.

A new project sponsored by a coalition of organizations seeks to track the various ways that federal and state programs discriminate against religious participants in a range of funding programs despite a series of Supreme Court cases holding such discriminatory treatment unconstitutional. The Religious Discrimination Tracker is a project of the EPIC Coalition (a multi-faith coalition that focuses on education), the Teach Coalition, the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic, and the Notre Dame Educational Law Project. The site seeks to identify ways to ensure equal access to funding by religious participants, particularly in education. In this webinar, Professor Nicole Stelle Garnett (Notre Dame Law) will discuss this new project and expand on her argument in a November 2024 Wall Street Journal op-ed that a range of federal programs "reflect[] an outdated understanding of the First Amendment that assumes the Constitution requires the exclusion of religious expression from public life and programs."Featuring:Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law and Religion and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

High-profile politically adjacent actions (including prosecutions, pardons, & dismissals) from both the current and past administrations have inspired increasing concern over the potential weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice. This concern has led to recent executive actions in this area --President Trump issued an Executive Order on the first day back in office on "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government," and AG Bondi has created a task force aimed at "Restoring the Integrity and Credibility" of the DOJ. These actions prompt the question: has the DOJ actually been weaponized, and if so, in what ways? What is the role of the DOJ in the criminal justice process, and what responsibility does it have as a part of the executive branch to represent the will of the president? Have the actions of both the past administrations in bringing cases against political opponents, seeking to dismiss charges from potential allies, and shielding friends and family from potential prosecution been a mis-use of the Department of Justice, or appropriate uses of executive discretion? This panel will discuss these questions and more. Featuring: Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro & Singer (Moderator) Stephen J. Demanovich, Special Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP -- This event is the second of four webinars centering on the theme Theories of Presidential Power, previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, which will be held on May 7, 2025. Please note: this event has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/16 and will now be hosted 04/21 at 11am ET.

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School (Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

President Trump’s February 18 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” Executive Order directs independent regulatory agencies to submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President. This joint webinar, sponsored by the Administrative Law and the Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Groups, will discuss the real-world implications of this order for independent agencies, including the Federal Communications Committee and the Federal Trade Commission.Featuring:J. Howard Beales, III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington UniversityHon. Susan E. Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington UniversityThomas M. Johnson, Jr. Partner, Wiley Rein LLPProf. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative StateModerator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher--To register, click the link above.

On March 25th, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument to resolve two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). The outcome of these cases will hinge on the Court’s interpretation of the CAA’s unique venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.What is the meaning and scope of this exception? How far may EPA go in picking where to litigate its final actions? And what does this mean for denials of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), small oil refineries seeking Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions, and other EPA actions affecting the regulated community? Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer their initial impressions following oral argument.Featuring:James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCModerator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney To register, click the link above.

How California’s state and local governments act in the wake of the devastating wildfires will be a harbinger of whether America can deal with its housing issues. California’s housing crisis was dire before the Southern California wildfires were sparked. As Jim Burling has recounted in his new book, Nowhere to Live, half of the nation’s homeless population lives in California. And between 2020 and 2023, California’s homeless population increased by 5.8 percent.Some argue that this housing crisis has only been exacerbated by errant government policies like exclusionary zoning and restrictive permitting conditions because these stifle the production of affordable housing. Others contend, however, that these restrictions are necessary not only to promote the orderly development of California’s land, but also to help prevent and avoid destruction done by wildfires and other natural disasters.Now, after so much property has been razed to the ground, how are California’s state and local governments addressing the needs of displaced landowners? What effect will Gov. Newsom’s emergency orders suspending the California Coastal Act’s requirements have on rebuilding? Will the California Coastal Commission comply with the Governor’s directives and how will it respond to rebuilding efforts? What implications will California’s response to the fires have on housing going forward?Join a panel of expert scholars, Jennifer Hernandez, Ilya Somin, and Nolan Gray, who will address these questions and much more.Speakers:Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research, California YIMBY Jennifer Hernandez, Partner, Holland & KnightProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Stephen Davis, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

In July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to terminate the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case, argued on April 2, asks whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Join this Courthouse Steps webinar as we discuss this case and the oral arguments presented in court.Featuring:Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralModerator: Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom--To register, click the link above.

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC