FedSoc Blog

Tomorrow, December 12, 2012, FedSoc's Criminal Law and Procedure Practice Group is hosting a Teleforum on cybersecurity. Here are the details:

Start : Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:00 PM

End   : Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:00 PM

Computer hacking is a large and growing problem, with no signs of abating as the world continues to modernize.  Static defenses like firewalls and encryption are helpful but not foolproof.  Experts seem to disagree as to whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1996 permits a hacked individual or entity to “hack back,” that is, go on the offense and attack the attacking computer.  The Department of Justice has taken the position that hacking back itself violates the law, while some notable experts assert that hacking back in self defense is permissible.  Join our experts as they discuss the legal limits.

Featuring:

• Hon. Stewart A. Baker, Steptoe & Johnson LLP and former Assistant U.S. Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
• Mr. Prof. Orin S. Kerr, The George Washington University Law School

Agenda:

Call begins at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Registration details:

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

UPDATE: This teleforum has been postponed.

Tomorrow September 2th, FedSoc's International & National Security Law Practice Group and the Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group is sponsoring a teleforum on "Free Speech, International Law, and the Impact of Violence Against U.S. Diplomatic Missions Abroad."

Since a recent series of riots and violent attacks, the U.S. has shut down some of its embassies and consulates in the Middle East.  The worst of these attacks resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.  Many, including members of the U.S. government, have blamed the attacks on a film made by a U.S. filmmaker, for which a trailer was posted on YouTube.  Should the violent reaction to a U.S. film cause us to rethink the nature of free speech protections for hate speech in the U.S.?  Should the U.S. government more aggressively defend the free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution in the global community?

Here are the details for the call:

Start : Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:00 PM

End   : Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:00 PM

Featuring:

    Prof. Julian Ku, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of International Programs, Hofstra University School of Law
    Prof. Peter J. Spiro, Charles R. Weiner Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law

Agenda: Call begins at 12:00 noon Eastern Time.

Registration details: Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In a recent SCOTUSblog symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of Alexander Bickel's The Least Dangerous Branch, Roger Pilon argued that the twin themes that emerged from that important volume -- the "countermajoritarian difficulty" and the "passive virtues" -- were especially influential in shaping the constitutional thought of Bickel's colleague, Robert Bork. Whatever their differences, Bork subsequently became seminal figure in shaping the modern conservative legal movement, especially through the Federalist Society. But those ideas led also to a response within that movement from libertarians concerned as much about the "majoritarian difficulty," all of which has led to a spirited debate on the Right over the nation's "First Principles." Contributing also to the SCOTUSblog symposium, Adam J. White noted the Madisonian and Burkean elements in Bickel's writings. Drawing on what he sees as Bickel's "principled prudence," he cautioned "not to press the Court to recognize rights divorced from principles rooted in national experience," thus affording us a good contrast for the discussion at hand.

FedSoc's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group invites you to join a teleforum on the subject "The Least Dangerous Branch: Still Relevant, 50 Years Later?"  Here are the details: 

Start : Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:00 PM

End   : Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:00 PM

Featuring:

• Dr. Roger Pilon, Cato Institute
• Mr. Adam J. White, Boyden Gray & Associates

Agenda: Call begins at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Registration details: Teleforum calls are open only dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here.

Professor Hadley P. Arkes' book, Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law, stands against the current of judgments long settled in the legal academy in regard to classic cases such as Lochner v. New York, Near v. Minnesota, New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case), and Bob Jones University v. United States.  Arkes takes concepts long regarded as settled principles in our law--"prior restraints," ex post facto laws--and he shows that there is actually a mystery about them, that their meaning is not as settled or clear as we have long supposed. Those mysteries have often given rise to illusions or at least a series of puzzles in our law.  They have at times acted as a lens through which we view the landscape of the law.  We often see what the lens has accustomed us to seeing, instead of seeing what is actually there.  Arkes tries to show that the logic of the natural law provides the key to this chain of puzzles, after which he will answer questions from our audience.

Tomorrow August 24, 2012, FedSoc's Religious Liberties Practice Group is hosting a teleforum with Arkes about his book.

Agenda: Call begins at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Registration details:  Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

With several weeks time to reflect on the U.S. Supreme Court's health care case, Professor Randy Barnett will discuss the commerce clause, tax power and Medicaid decisions, and their implications. 

Featuring:

• Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center

Agenda:

Call begins at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Registration details:

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Listen to the audio here.

In the health care case NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court determined that the individual mandate exceeds the Commerce Clause power of Congress, but can be upheld under the taxing power. The Medicaid expansion provision was upheld, but the Court ruled that Congress could not take back Medicaid funds from states that decide to not participate in the expansion. In this recorded Teleforum, David Rivkin, the litigator who began this important case by filing the lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of numerous states and the NFIB, explains the decision and the dissents.

Featuring:

• David B. Rivkin, Jr., Baker & Hostetler LLP
• Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

You can listen to the Teleforum here.

Today at 4 pm ET the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group will be hosting a Teleforum on the Obamacare decision.

NFIB v Sebelius, the health care case, has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court has determined that the individual mandate exceeds the Commerce Clause power of Congress, but can be upheld under the taxing power.  The Medicaid expansion provision was upheld, but the Court ruled that Congress could not take back Medicaid funds from states that decide to not participate in the expansion.  Join us as David Rivkin, the litigator who began this important case by filing the lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of numerous states and the NFIB, explains the decision and the dissents.

Registration details:

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the highly anticipated immigration case, Arizona v. U.S. The Court’s decision was split, striking down some sections of Arizona’s law, but upholding others. Our experts will provide information the future of immigration law enforcement and the division of authority between the Federal and state governments.

Tomorrow June 25, FedSoc's Civil Rights Practice Group will be hosting a teleforum on the case. 

Featuring:

• Dr. John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law
• Prof. Margaret D. Stock, Lane Powell PC

Agenda:

Call begins at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Registration details:

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Tomorrow June 22 at 1 pm ET, FedSoc's Labor & Employment Law Practice Group is hosting a teleforum on "The New Rule on Union Dues: Knox v. SEIU."  Speaking will be Dominic F. Parella and W. James Young.

This week the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, reversing the Ninth Circuit 7-2. The case concerns a union special assessment for a "Political Fight Back Fund" that nonmember California state employees were required to pay as a condition of employment. The Court held 5-4, in a majority opinion written by Justice Alito, that "when a public sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide [a notice of the purpose of the assessment or increase] and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent." The Court also held that the union could not constitutionally charge the nonmembers for its expenses opposing ballot questions even if they "may be said to have an effect on present and future contracts between public-sector workers and their employers." Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurred in the judgment, but agreed only that "[w]hen a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide nonmembers an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds." Justices Breyer and Kagan dissented. Our experts will discuss the ramifications of the case.

Registration details:

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

According to the university's press release:

Today The Catholic University of America joined a lawsuit to block implementation of the mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services that would require it to provide health insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, prescription contraceptives, and drugs that cause early stage abortions.

The Jones Day law firm has filed the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of The Catholic University of America, the Archdiocese of Washington, the Consortium of Catholic Academies, Archbishop Carroll High School, and Catholic Charities of D.C. (For a complete list of the plaintiffs, click here.)

President John Garvey issued the following statement:

On August 1, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed a rule requiring most health insurance plans to cover, at no added cost to subscribers, sterilization procedures and prescription contraceptives, including pills that act after fertilization to induce abortions. The rule included an exemption for “religious employers,” but that term is defined so narrowly that it excludes Catholic universities and most other Catholic institutions.

Tomorrow, the Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group will be holding a teleforum on the very same issue.

On Monday, May 14, FedSoc's Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group will be hosting a teleforum on Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) has been embraced by every President since Richard Nixon as a general purpose tool for evaluating the merits of administrative decisions, even while it has been assigned a subordinate role – or no role at all – in the statutory frameworks for making those decisions.  One consequence is that we have a voluminous record of BCA performance in the executive branch, but only a handful of cases in which it has played an important role in judicial review of rules.  Now, amid widespread claims that federal regulation is contributing to America’s continuing economic troubles, BCA is getting more attention.  As practiced, does it give an accurate picture of the economic consequences of regulatory actions?  Should we rely on it or require it, more than we do, to guide administrative discretion?  Our two experts will talk about the state of the art and current BCA controversies in energy and environmental regulation, and in financial regulation.

Featuring:

• Dr. Sharon Brown-Hruska, National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
• Mr. Brian Mannix, Buckland Mill Associates

Agenda:

Call begins at 12:00 noon Eastern Time.

Registration details:

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Listen to the audio here.

Last year, using a drone missile strike, the U.S. killed Anwar al-Awlaki. Questions were raised about the legal and constititional authority to target a U.S. citizen abroad. In recent remarks delivered by Attorney General Eric Holder, the administration offered its most detailed legal defense to date. On April 24, 20120, our experts discussed this legal rationale, and the future of targeting U.S. citizens.  Participating in the teleforum were:

• Prof. Michael W. Lewis, Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law
• Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College of Law
• Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

You can listen to the International & National Security Law Practice Group podcast here.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the much talked about immigration law case, Arizona v. United States.  At issue is the constitutionality of Arizona's statute, S.B. 1070.  Does the statute cross the line into territory that has been pre-empted by federal law?  Or, as the law's proponents argue, is the statute a proper exercise of the state's police power?  After providing their analysis of the case, our experts will take questions from callers.  The call will feature Prof. John C. Eastman of Chapman University School of Law and Margaret D. Stock of Lane Powell PC.

Details:

Start : Friday, April 27, 2012 1:00 PM

End   : Friday, April 27, 2012 2:00 PM

Teleforum calls are open to all dues-paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Tomorrow, April 17, at 1 p.m. ET, FedSoc's Civil Rights Practice Group will be holding a teleforum on a new Supreme Court affirmative action case.  Fisher v. University of Texas comes before the Court just as an unprecedented number of scholars have published work directly or indirectly calling into question some of the basic assumptions of affirmative action policies. Is the Supreme Court poised to make more fundamental changes to affirmative action in higher education than it did in either Bakke (1978) or Grutter and Gratz (2003)? Does Fisher have the markings of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case?  Professor Richard Sander of UCLA will give an overview of this research and discuss its implications for Fisher.

Please note that the teleforum is open only to dues-paying FedSoc members.  You can join the Federalist Society here.

Listen to the audio here.

The decennial census has again produced the decennial redistricting litigation--not least in Texas, whose attempts to draw districts for the 2012 elections have engulfed two three-judge district courts, the Department of Justice, and the Supreme Court. The Texas litigation has been complicated by what some see as the conflicting demands of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In Perry v. Perez, the Supreme Court vacated the interim maps a lower court drew and gave that court instructions on how navigate the legal tangle. That may have expedited the resolution of Texas's election conundrum but by no means resolved the broader issues involved.

In this recorded Federalist Society Teleforum, Justin Levitt, Ilya Shapiro, and Dean A. Reuter discuss Perry v. Perez, the Voting Rights Act, and other developments in election regulation.