Teleforum

The Federalist Society

About

This series of podcasts features experts who analyze the latest developments in the legal and policy world. The podcasts are in the form of monologues, podcast debates or panel discussions and vary in length. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues.

Available on

Community

1045 episodes

Talks with Authors: Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words

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

53m
Aug 09
Courthouse Steps Decision: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

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 Dunn -- Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP -- Jason Manion, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn -- Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

57m
Aug 09
The Future of Chevron Deference at the Supreme Court

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

57m
Aug 09
Courthouse Steps Decision: Biden v. Texas

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Biden v. Texas. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), an immigration enforcement program put in place under the Trump administration. Under MPP (colloquially known as "Remain in Mexico"), many individuals seeking asylum in the United States after entering via the southern border were sent back to Mexico to await their court dates. Soon after taking office President Biden sought to end the program, but the administration was ordered to continue enforcing the Protocols by a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Please join Professor Ilya Somin as he breaks down the ruling and its implications for immigration policy and administrative law. Featuring: -- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

32m
Aug 09
Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: West Virginia v. EPA

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan’s merits. This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution. Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring: -- David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA -- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA. -- Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.

1h 2m
Aug 09
The Future of Homemade Firearms: The Legal and Political Implications of ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F

Americans have been privately manufacturing and assembling firearms since before this country’s founding. Now, thanks to the prevalence of commercially available firearm parts, “buy, build, shoot” kits, and 3D printers, it is easier than ever to build a gun in the comfort of one’s own home, which bypasses many of the statutory and regulatory regimes that govern buying a fully built firearm from a gun store. To some, this represents a loophole in America’s gun laws. Others see this as a modern innovation in the tradition of home gun building that has always existed in America. The Biden Administration shares the former view. On April 11, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Among other measures, this rule changes the ATF’s definition of “firearm frame or receiver” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968, greatly expanding the list of what is considered a firearm by the agency, and therefore what can be strictly regulated under existing federal law. Furthermore, both houses of Congress currently have bills before them designed to increase the regulation of homemade firearms, and to ban certain types of these so-called “ghost guns”. In this timely webinar, our experts will cover the ATF’s Final Rule, set to go into effect on August 24, 2022, and will discuss the legal and political implications surrounding homemade firearms and the regulation thereof. Featuring: -- Matthew Larosiere, Director of Legal Policy at Firearms Policy Coalition -- Dru Stevenson, Wayne Fisher Research Professor, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston -- Moderator: Ryan Lacey, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society --- To register, cick the link above

1h 0m
Jul 28
Litigation Update: State Legislatures, State Courts, and Federal Elections

Who decides the rules for federal elections? The Constitution generally assigns that power to the “Legislature” of each state, but state courts are playing an increasing role. Recent elections have witnessed an increase in decisions applying broad provisions of state constitutions to override election laws and congressional maps adopted by legislators. That is what happened in Moore v. Harper, which the Supreme Court will hear in its upcoming term. Recently 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. Their Exhibit A: the Trump campaign’s failed strategy to convince state legislatures to overrule voters in the 2020 presidential election. This webinar will provide an overview of the legal debate, background on the Moore case, and discussion of the key issues and controversies that the Court will confront. 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

1h 2m
Jul 28
Is the EEOC misusing the Freedom of Information Act to penalize employers that adopt mandatory employment arbitration programs?

The EEOC is denying employers’ FOIA requests for the EEOC’s charge investigation files when resulting employment claims are proceeding in arbitration rather than litigation. Our panel will discuss whether the EEOC’s justifications for denying such FOIA requests are consistent with FOIA and other governing federal statutes. We will consider a number of related issues. What is the EEOC’s basis for treating litigation and arbitration differently in responding to employers’ FOIA requests? How long has the EEOC been making this distinction between litigation and arbitration? In light of the increasing prevalence of employment arbitration, should employers challenge the EEOC’s FOIA practices and, if so, how? Featuring: -- Janet Dhillon, Commissioner, EEOC -- Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day -- Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

41m
Jul 28
A Response to: Ten Years On: The America Invents Act and the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in resolving patent disputes

Join us on July 27 to hear three experts give a response to our April 26th event on The America Invents Act and the role of Patent Trial and Appeal Board in resolving patent disputes. Featuring: -- Prof. Thomas D. Grant, Senior Research Fellow (Wolfson College); Fellow (Lauterpacht Centre for International Law), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge -- Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School -- Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)

1h 3m
Jul 28
Consumers' Research v. FCC and the Legality of the Universal Service Fund Contribution Regime

With billions of dollars allocated to broadband funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the future of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) is a hotly debated topic. Now, with multiple lawsuits challenging the very legality of the USF contribution system, as well as new guidance from the Supreme Court on the limits of federal agencies’ power, the future of the Fund hangs in the balance. Join industry experts to discuss the issues raised in Consumers’ Research v. FCC and where the lawsuits stand in the aftermath of West Virginia v. EPA. Featuring: Robert Frieden, Emeritus Professor of Telecommunications and Law, Penn State University Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute Michael Romano, Sr. VP of Industry Affairs and Business Development, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association Moderator: Arielle Roth, Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senator Roy Blunt --- To register, please click the link above

1h 0m
Jul 27
Are IRS Defenses Crumbling?

The continuous stream of regulations and other guidance the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) must publish to inform the public how it is going to implement, administer, and enforce the frequent, numerous, and complicated changes to the tax laws, along with the high dollar stakes involved, create constant opportunities and incentives to challenge the IRS. Some contend that the IRS’s ability to defend itself against these challenges seems to be vanishing as one after another the IRS has lost a string of recent challenges to its guidance. A recent blog post summarizes some of these defeats. Our speakers will discuss them in more detail, along with what they might portend for how the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department issue future guidance. Another direction to watch is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: will Congress begin to do a better job drafting laws and providing instructions and guidance about how they are to be implemented, administered, and enforced? Featuring: Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School Gilbert Rothenberg, Adjunct Professor of Law, American University's Washington College of Law and the University of Pennsylvania's Carey Law School Interlocutor: Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC --- To register, click the link above

1h 3m
Jul 27
Liar, Liar: False Statements and the Freedom of Speech

What can the government do to counter "disinformation" or other statements that it believes to be false? The Supreme Court famously protected some false defamatory statements in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and extended that holding, in United States v. Alvarez, that the First Amendment prevented the government from punishing a speaker from falsely claiming to have won military honors. Yet other false statements, such as fraud and perjury, may be punished, and recently the question of the government's power to limit false speech has assumed more prominence. In response to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021 and President Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen, the governor of Washington State proposed a law punishing false speech that was likely to lead to violence. Elsewhere controversies surrounding the truth of COVID-related information have arisen and the Biden Administration's Department of Homeland Security had planned to create a board to counter disinformation. Amid free-speech outcries, the proposal was set aside, but the Administration remains focused on combating disinformation. This program will feature panelists with contrasting views of the government's authority in this field and whether efforts to limit false speech represent a threat to First Amendment values. Featuring: Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc. Catherine Ross, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Moderator: Hon. Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission --- To register, click the link above

1h 2m
Jul 27
A Discussion on Dobbs

Please join the Federalist Society's Practice Groups for a virtual event on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided this case 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. Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case. Featuring: Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul Stevens Carrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence Thomas Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit Host: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

58m
Jul 11
Private Sector Diversity Programs: Perks and Pitfalls

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

1h 0m
Jul 07
Does the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Have Authority To Regulate the Climate?

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

1h 0m
Jul 07
Are We Still One People? Do We Hold These Truths?

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

1h 16m
Jul 05
State Constitutions and Individual Liberty: State or Federal Government as Primary Custodian of Individual Rights?

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 Law Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute Robert 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 Foundation Visit our website – www.RegProject.org http://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

1h 1m
Jul 05
Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

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 Society

1h 0m
Jul 05
The Use of Race in the Biden-Harris Administration, and Legal Challenges to Race-Based Policymaking

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. Featuring: Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation --- To register, click the link above

1h 0m
Jul 05
Courthouse Steps Decision: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

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 --- To register, please click the link above

33m
Jun 27
Crypto Wars: Balancing Privacy versus National Security

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

59m
Jun 13
Due Process Protections in Agency Enforcement Actions

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

1h 0m
Jun 13
Due Process Protections in Agency Enforcement Actions

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 --- To register, click the link above

59m
Jun 13
Issue Update: Critical Race Theory Legislation Across the States

This webinar will explore issues raised by the raft of state and federal initiatives on Critical Race Theory and related topics. Issues will include the scope of state authority over the content of education, with special attention to differences between K-12 and public universities. Varying features of state-level CRT bills will be discussed, as well as the characterization of their content from supporters and detractors. On the state level, state education standards, "book banning", and legislation pertaining to curriculum transparency, “action civics,” and “diversity statements” will be discussed. Moves to control educational content at the federal level through grantmaking will also be covered. Featuring: Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center --- To register, click the link above

1h 1m
Jun 13
The Future of Universal Service After the Infrastructure Act

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

59m
Jun 07
Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: Morgan v. Sundance

On May 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Morgan v. Sundance. In a rare 9-0 decision, the Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that federal courts may not adopt an arbitration-specific rule conditioning a finding of waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice to the other party. Though this had been a relatively common analysis, the Court rejected it, cabining any concept that there is a “policy favoring arbitration.” The Court reinterpreted that to mean only that federal courts may not invent special, arbitration-preferring procedural rules. “[A] court must hold a party to its arbitration contract just as the court would to any other kind.” The Court went on to say that “a court may not devise novel rules to favor arbitration over litigation.” But the Court also left open the role of state law and what rules can apply, including waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, laches, or procedural timeliness. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for these parties and other litigation parties going forward. Featuring: Erika Birg, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Richard D. Faulkner, FCIArb., Arbitrator, Attorney & Former Professor of ADR Law

42m
Jun 01
Courthouse Steps: Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

On April 28, 2022, The U.S. Supreme Court decided Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. The case involved the availability of emotional damages for discrimination on the basis of disability and, more generally, the scope of recoverable damages for private actions under Spending Clause statutes. After the respondent, Premier Rehab, declined to provide a sign language interpreter at Jane Cummings’ physical therapy sessions, Cummings sued the provider in federal court. Cummings claimed disability discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act. A trial court found that the only injuries allegedly caused by Premier were emotional in nature and dismissed the complaint, ruling that emotional damages are not recoverable under either statute. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that emotional damages are not recoverable in a private action under either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. The majority opinion was penned by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for disabilities law going forward. Featuring: -- Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

21m
May 31
From Russia Without Love: U.S. Energy Policy, Environmental Goals, Foreign Wars, and the Administrative State

The United States is – perhaps now more than ever before – a global energy powerhouse. From oil and gas production to the expansion of new energy technologies, the United States has made gains in achieving long-heralded calls for energy independence and energy security, while also reducing environmental impacts associated with energy production, generation, transportation, and use. Many are calling for even more accelerated environmental progress, particularly on the climate front. While rapidly changing geopolitical dynamics – in Europe and elsewhere – are placing the United States’ energy sector and its capabilities to meet global energy needs at the forefront, a host of federal and state environmental regulatory regimes continue to pose substantial hurdles to energy-related goals and priorities. Energy pipelines, export facilities, oil and gas production, mining projects, transmission systems, and a host of other energy projects must navigate a labyrinth of regulatory reviews and approvals – from NEPA to the Clean Water Act to the Endangered Species Act and beyond. This panel of distinguished legal and policy experts will debate the goals and priorities of U.S. energy and environmental policy, administrative law dynamics affecting the energy sector, the role of climate policy and energy technologies, and the implications of these factors for our Nation’s national security in light of the war in Ukraine and other recent geopolitical events. Featuring: -- Tristan Abbey, President of Comarus Analytics LLC -- Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP -- Julia Olson, Executive Director at Our Children's Trust; Chief Legal Counsel for plaintiffs in Juliana v. U.S. -- Moderator: Hon. Ryan Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

21m
May 26
College Admissions: Fair or Fixed?

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear two cases this fall that challenge race preferential admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, questions have arisen about how colleges typically use race preferences and whether such use is fair and lawful. This webinar will address how and when race is commonly used in college admissions, whether colleges and universities are generally following the existing law, and what if any safeguards colleges use to ensure that line admissions officers use race to further only legally permissible goals. The panelists will also discuss what some find the surprising fact that Asian American applicants are more likely to be displaced by race-preferential admissions than white students and whether this practice is fair. Finally, the presenters may also address the fairness of other non-academic factors widely used in admissions, such as preferences for legacies, recruited athletes, or the children of large donors. Featuring: -- Art Coleman, Managing Partner and Co-Founder, EducationCounsel -- Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm -- Moderator: Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

21m
May 26
The Government’s Arms Around Cryptocurrency: Hug or Stranglehold?

As the cryptocurrency industry grows, state and federal governments are considering how that industry should be regulated. The President has directed the Secretary of the Treasury to report soon on the issues involved. A draft bill that would regulate stablecoins has been released in the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, states are competing with one another to adopt regulatory laws that may attract cryptocurrency firms to their welcoming, but taxing, arms striving for economic growth. Will regulation be designed to avoid discouraging innovation in a highly creative environment? Fears have been expressed that unregulated cryptocurrency could theoretically present systemic risk, and consumers may need to be protected--particularly in light of the recent collapse of the Luna cryptocurrency and its related Terra stablecoin. Some believe that regulation may be an opportunity to include those presently unserved by the banking system. Complicating this already complicated picture may be rivalry among multiple federal agencies, including the banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, each of which may make a case for potential authority over aspects of the cryptocurrency industry. Our panel of experts will address these timely and controversial questions. Featuring: -- Douglas Elliott, Partner, Oliver Wyaman -- Michael Piwowar, Executive Director, Milken Institute Center for Financial Markets -- Dawn Stump, Former Commissioner, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission -- Thomas Vartanian, Executive Director, Financial Technology & Cybersecurity Center -- Moderator: Paul N. Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners

1h 2m
May 24