Teleforum

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 UniversityModerator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

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.

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 LLPModerator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

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 LibertyWilliam E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation---To register, click the link above

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

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 BudgetHon. Kathy Kraninger, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Solidus Labs; Former Director, Consumer Financial Protection BureauMichele Korver, Head of Regulatory, a16z CryptoNorbert Michel, Vice President and Director, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato InstituteModerator: Dina Ellis Rochkind, Counsel, Government Affairs and Strategy, Paul Hastings

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

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 TransportationSheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceModerator: 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

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

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, USTelecomAlexander Minard, Vice President & State Legislative Counsel, NCTAAngie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate and General Counsel, INCOMPASDr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy StudiesModerator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies

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 LLPRichard D. Faulkner, FCIArb., Arbitrator, Attorney & Former Professor of ADR Law

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

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

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

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

A Hollywood depiction of the lives of fishermen tells a real life story about how Executive Branch overreach damages American families. Hear from two practitioners challenging the administrative state on these very regulations depicted in “Coda” and learn why telling clients' stories is critical to reform. Featuring:-- Eric Bolinder, Managing Policy Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation; Counsel, Cause of Action Institute-- John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance-- Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC

On October 21, 2021, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced a nearly $200 million whistleblower award, the largest in history. The award was related to more than $3 billion in sanctions by the CFTC and foreign regulators. The award, so large that it emptied the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's fund for whistleblower awards, was criticized as "relating to an action by a foreign futures authority to address harm outside the United States." Join us as we speak with David Kovel, attorney for the whistleblower and managing partner of Kirby McInerney LLP, as he discusses his role in this record-shattering award, the challenges he faced, and the public policy questions we face. Featuring: -- David Kovel, Managing Partner, Kirby McInerney LLP-- Moderator: Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law

On January 20, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hemphill v. New York. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York, holding that the trial court's admission—over Hemphill's objection—of the plea allocution transcript of an unavailable witness violated Hemphill's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:-- Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP and former United States Attorney, Southern District of Mississippi

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) are the subject of a global debate. In one version, individuals and businesses would hold deposits directly with the central bank. Critics point out that the Federal Reserve would then control how these deposits are used, allocating credit to private-sector borrowers and to government spending, arguing that CBDCs would eviscerate the private banking industry and create government surveillance of all financial transactions in the accounts. An alternate version is that CBDCs take the form of a tokenized dollars, distributed through the banking system and operating in parallel with paper currency and bank accounts. Supporters say this could yield lower transaction costs and more rapid settlement of payments, and could strengthen the international role of the U.S. dollar. Featuring:Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.Chris Giancarlo, Senior Counsel, Willkie Digital Works LLP; Former Chairman, US Commodity Futures Trading CommissionGreg Baer, President & Chief Executive Officer, Bank Policy InstituteModerator: Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, the Mises InstituteRelated:The Government’s Arms Around Cryptocurrency: Hug or Stranglehold? ---To register, click the link above.

In Thompson v. Clark, the plaintiff sought to bring a civil suit claiming he was the victim of a wrongful seizure after police allegedly entered his apartment without a warrant based on unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse. Thompson was charged with resisting arrest amid the warrantless raid, but prosecutors subsequently elected to drop this criminal case. The question that then arose was whether this result, though short of a formal exoneration, was sufficient to meet the requirement that there be a favorable conclusion of the criminal case against Thompson before he could pursue his civil suit. In this discussion, attorneys for amici on both sides will explore which justices got it right and the implications of this ruling in future cases for prosecutors, defendants, and civil litigants.BackgroundThompson v. Clark was decided on April 4 with the Supreme Court holding Larry Thompson's showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution. The majority rejected the dissenting view that an affirmative indication of innocence should be required. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the 6-3 opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.Featuring:-- Vincent Stark, Bureau Chief, Legal Affairs Unit, Albany County District Attorney's Office-- Marie Miller, Attorney, Institute for Justice-- Moderator: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

Last fall, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced significant changes to Department of Justice policies on corporate criminal enforcement, including the use of monitors, review of prior misconduct, and cooperation. As Monaco stated, "This is a start -- and not the end -- of this administration's actions to better combat corporate crime." These changes and the Administration's formation of a Corporate Crime Advisory Group signal a shift in DOJ's commitment to ferreting out corporate crimes and more rigorous enforcement activities. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced its own intention to conduct faster investigations, bring bigger cases, and to seek harsher penalties. In his first speech on enforcement, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler quoted the agency's first Chair, Joseph Kennedy, to summarize his own agenda: "The Commission will make war without quarter on any who sells securities by fraud or misrepresentation." Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Rostin Behnam, has also requested that Congress expand the CFTC's enforcement powers and professed the agency's readiness to serve as the "primary cop on the beat" for cryptocurrency markets.Former DOJ prosecutor Luke Cass and Britt Biles, who held former senior legal roles at the SEC, the White House, and the U.S. Small Business Administration will explain these policy shifts and discuss the risks for corporate America under this new era, additional priority enforcement areas for the Administration, and what these new policies mean for the future of corporate compliance.Featuring:-- Luke Cass, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson-- Britt Biles, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson-- Moderator: Nicholas Marr, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

This panel will focus on the pros and cons of zoning, its relation to environmental justice, its detrimental (or beneficial) impacts on minorities, and its consistency (or inconsistency) with property rights. Importantly, the discussion will engage with the scope of modern zoning and what, if anything, should be done to alter, increase, or decrease the government's zoning power. Given the rise of environmental justice in administrative policy and academic debate, this event presents a timely discussion of environmental justice's application to debates over zoning policy in the United States. Criticisms of zoning are on the rise from both the right and left. Critics focus on the ignoble racial history of zoning and its detrimental impacts on the housing market and property values. Defenders instead look to the community stability provided by zoning and the separation of industrial from residential property uses. This panel will present varying views from across the intellectual spectrum featuring both criticisms and defenses of zoning from the right and left. Featuring:-- Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame-- Randall O'Toole, Blogger, The Antiplanner-- Richard Rothstein, Distinguished Fellow of the Economic Policy Institute and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund-- Prof. Christopher Serkin, Elisabeth H. and Granville S. Ridley Jr. Chair in Law and Professor of Management at the Owen Graduate School of Management-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts

On March 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Badgerow v. Walters. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that Vaden's “look-through” approach to determining federal jurisdiction does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:-- Bradley Hubbard, Senior Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- Elizabeth Kiernan, Associate and Member, Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But, with the recent ten-year anniversary of the AIA, a new director poised to take the helm at the USPTO, and Congress ramping up debate on reforms to the AIA, is now the time for a reexamination? Our speakers will consider the role of the PTAB in resolving patent disputes and the legality of the exercise of significant discretionary authority by the USPTO Director to implement policy outside the authority granted the director under the AIA.Featuring:-- Joseph Matal, partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Haynes and Boone, LLP-- Paul Brian Taylor, who served over 20 years as Counsel and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He also served as Senior Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight.-- Moderator: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Former Congressman, United States House of Representatives

On April 25, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.Bremerton School District in Washington state removed Coach Joe Kennedy from his job as a public high school football coach after kneeling in brief, quiet prayer on the field after football games. Coach Kennedy filed suit alleging that the school district's ban on “demonstrative religious activity” violated his First Amendment rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.In 2019, on appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the petition for review, allowing further factual development. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, writing that the “Ninth Circuit's understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future.”This year, the Supreme Court granted cert on two questions concerning the interplay of the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses:Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.We will break down the argument on the same day, April 25, 2022.Featuring:-- Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First LibertyNote: Coach Kennedy is represented by Kirkland & Ellis and First Liberty Institute.

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vacated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capital sentences. The Court held that the judge's conduct of voir dire conformed to its precedents and reversed the First Circuit's holding that the judge had violated a rule established by that circuit under its supervisor power. The Court held that courts of appeals have no power to circumvent or supplement legal standards established in Supreme Court precedents.The Court also held that the judge was within his authority to exclude from the penalty trial hearsay evidence of Tsarnaev's brother's involvement in an unrelated murder. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires admission of all mitigating evidence no matter how dubious or how weakly mitigating.Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:-- Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

In the modern era, U.S. Supreme Court justices have been cited for what some critics characterize as “controversial” statements, sometimes relating to actual or potential matters before the Court. In some instances, these critiques have been accompanied by calls for recusal in specific cases. More recently, critics have turned to the statements not only of the justices themselves, but of the spouse of one particular justice. In light of these recent developments, what are the free speech considerations for justices and their family members? Although there is no formal code of judicial conduct applicable to spouses or even the justices of the Supreme Court, what are the ethical considerations of these actions? Does Congress have authority to impose an ethical code on this co-equal branch of government, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court?Featuring:-- Prof. Rebecca Roiphe, Trustee Professor of Law and Co-Dean for Faculty Scholarship, New York Law School-- Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School-- Prof. Michael I. Krauss, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

A war is raging in Europe. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Arguing that Ukraine was controlled by nationalists and Nazis, Russia sought to seize major cities including the capitol, Kyiv, and trigger a regime change. After failures to achieve these objectives, Russia now appears to be regrouping its forces to target Ukraine's eastern region. Russia's aggression has resulted in significant civilian deaths, the alleged commission of war crimes, and the displacement of millions of Ukrainians. The invasion has also unified the West, with Germany pledging to increase military spending, broad sanctions against Russian leadership and industry, and discussions in Sweden and Finland about joining NATO. Our experts will review events to date, what we can expect from the Kremlin, the Biden administration's policy, and what comes next. Please join us for this timely conversation.Featuring:-- Michael Allen, Managing Director, Beacon Global Strategies; Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counter-proliferation Strategy, National Security Council; Author, Blinking Red Light: Crisis and Compromise in American Intelligence after 9/11-- Prof. Angela Stent, Director, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies; Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University-- Moderator: Matthew Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security Institute

No poaching allowed! No, you have not wandered into a Hunter's Safety Forum, but rather an in depth discourse regarding the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's recent criminal investigations and prosecutions of “No Poach” conduct. These agreements, which generally establish that Company A will not hire Company B's employees and in exchange Company B agrees to do the same, have been in the DOJ crosshairs since 2016, but only in the last year have they been specifically referenced in public charging documents. DOJ's decision to now criminally prosecute “no poach” agreements has resulted in approximately six charged cases from January 2021 to the present. The criminal antitrust defense bar, as well as some academics, have cried foul given that from their perspective the DOJ has created a new form of criminal antitrust conduct out of whole cloth and is prosecuting individuals and corporations who had no intent to violate the law nor had any indication that discussing employment concerns with another company was unlawful. The enforcers have responded just as forcefully and argue that it has always been criminal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act to allocate markets and “no poach” is nothing more than the allocation of the market for employees. Amidst this backdrop, our panel will examine the evolution of “no poach” from the DOJ's 2016 Guidance for Human Resource Professionals to the cases that are currently pending before judges and at least one jury. Our panel will include former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Barry Nigro, Co-Chair of the ABA Antitrust Section's Cartel & Criminal Practice Committee Lindsey Vaala, former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Zach Terwilliger, and Pepper Crutcher, chair of the Labor and Employment practice group at the Federalist Society and partner at Balch & Bingham, who will wrangle our panel and serve as moderator.Featuring:-- Barry Nigro, Partner, Fried Frank, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust-- Lindsey Vaala, Counsel, Vinson & Elkins, and Co-Chair, ABA Antitrust Section's Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee-- Zach Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia-- Moderator: Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham and Chairman, Labor & Employment Practice Group at the Federalist Society

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases that will be covered are included below. United States v. Washington (April 18) – workers' compensation; state and federal lawSiegel v. Fitzgerald (April 18) – Bankruptcy Judgeship Act; Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution George v. McDonough (April 19) – veterans' claims and Department of Veterans Affairs agency interpretationKemp v. United States (April 19) – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)Vega v. Tekoh (April 20) – Habeas motions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and relief for Miranda violationsKennedy v. Bremerton (April 25) – the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First AmendmentNance v. Ward (April 25) – method of execution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 habeas motionsBiden v. Texas (April 26) – remain in Mexico immigration policyShoop v. Twyford (April 26) – the All Writs Act and habeas petitionsOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (April 27) – Indian Law Featuring:-- Noel J. Francisco, Partner-in-Charge Washington, Jones Day-- Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP-- Aaron M. Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice, Baker Botts LLP -- Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP-- Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

In his recent book John Fisher and Thomas More: Keeping Their Souls While Losing Their Heads, Robert Conrad, who serves as a federal district court judge in the Western District of North Carolina, details the lives, trials, and executions of two Catholic saints who opposed King Henry's bid for ecclesiastical approval of his divorce. Thomas More, an attorney and close advisor to the king, underwent a trial filled with grievous errors, the deprivation of due process, and more. Judge Conrad will join us to discuss his book, these two men, and the enduring relevance of their stories.Featuring: -- Hon. Robert Conrad, District Judge, Western District of North Carolina-- Moderator: William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, and Fellow, The Institute for Human Ecology

Following the prominent events of early 2020, as part of what's often referred to as a national, racial reckoning, countless institutions altered their policies. Large publicly traded corporations (including Coca-Cola Company, Novartis AG, McDonald's Corporation, Starbucks Coffee Company, Lowe's Companies, Inc., NASDAQ, Inc., and much of the financial services industry) rolled out new policies — under banners invoking diversity, equity, and inclusion — concerning matters ranging from their selection of vendors, to hiring and promotions, to election of future directors to (in NASDAQ's case) willingness to list customers at all. Those policies have raised concern among some over their potential violation of civil rights law (both state and federal), including Dan Morenoff, the Executive Director of the American Civil Rights Project. Do officers and directors of publicly traded companies advancing these policies run afoul of existing corporate law, with possible personal liability for breaches of fiduciary duty and for their use of corporate resources pursuing ultra vires actions? Citing the related concerns of shareholders, the ACR Project demanded the public retraction of such policies by Coke last year — Coke acceded in all but name in March, declaring that the policies at issue “have not been and are not policy of the company[.]” The ACR Project has since made demands on behalf of shareholders to the officers and directo rs of Lowe's, Novartis, McDonald's, and Starbucks. America First Legal appears to have taken a related tack this week in publicly demanding on behalf of shareholders that the Walt Disney Company's officers and directors launch investigations into alleged violations of employee's civil rights. Featuring: -- Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project

When can you sue a federal agent who violates your constitutional rights? Which constitutional rights can you sue about? A federal statute allows you to sue state and local officers for violating your constitutional rights, but there is no federal law that does the same for federal officers. In 1971, in a case called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court held that a cause of action for damages against federal officers could be inferred from constitutional provisions. But in the 50 years since, the Court has struggled to explain how, or even if, a Bivens cause of action applies in different cases.In 2014, Erik Egbert, a Customs and Border Patrol Agent, went to the Smugglers Inn, which sits at the U.S.-Canada border, and approached a car carrying a guest from Turkey. The inn's owner, Robert Boule, asked Egbert to leave. Egbert refused to do so and pushed Boule to the ground. After Boule complained to Egbert's supervisors, Egbert suggested to the IRS that it investigate Boule. In Egbert v. Boule, argued on March 2, the Court continued to grapple with Bivens questions, including whether Bivens applies to First Amendment retaliation and whether federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions are subject to Bivens suits for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.Featuring:-- Anya Bidwell, Attorney and Elfie Gallun Fellow in Freedom and the Constitution, Institute for Justice-- Erin Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center-- Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit

In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding a state's ability to enforce compulsory vaccination laws pursuant to its police powers and for the protection of its citizens. This precedent has recently come under scrutiny for its possible overbreadth. Two distinguished experts join us to discuss and debate the holding of the case, its merits, its relevance today, and ultimately, whether it should be limited or overruled. Featuring: -- Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston-- Prof. Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair and Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin School of Law

With the Supreme Court about to hear two cases involving the use of race in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, what do Americans actually think about preferential treatment? Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), will present her analysis of recent data from the Pew Research Center on what Americans believe colleges should consider when deciding whom to admit. Her study focuses on the attitudes of some of the beneficiaries of affirmative action, based on a large sample of black and Hispanic respondents as well as Asians and whites. Joining Dr. Nagai on the panel discussion will be Theodore Johnson, Director of the Fellows Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, and moderator Linda Chavez, CEO Chair.Featuring:Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)Theodore Johnson, Director, Fellows Program, Brennan Center for JusticeModerator: Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Are state governors subject to the same separation of powers restrictions as the federal president?Expanding on the recent Regulatory Transparency Project panel discussion on emergency executive power during the pandemic, this event will feature experts engaging in a broader separation of powers discussion about the distinctions between the federal and state separation of powers doctrines, using California as an example.In a conversation moderated by Braden Boucek, David. A. Carrillo, Luke A. Wake, and John C. Yoo will explore those distinctions, examine how they affect the latitude and options state and federal executives have, and debate the extent to which federal separation of powers doctrines can or should be applied to the states through judicial interpretation.Featuring:David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of LawLuke A. Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationJohn C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California, Berkeley, 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.

New York's response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been widely criticized, triggered an FBI investigation, and repeatedly landed the state before the Supreme Court. The latest criticism comes coupled with litigation alleging that New York State's Department of Health (NYHD) is illegally discriminating on the basis of race in administering antiviral medication for covid treatment. On December 27, 2021, the NYHD issued guidelines for the administration of the antivirals paxlovid and molnupiravir. Citing the short supply of both treatments, the NYHD directed that the drugs could only be administered to patients with Covid who also had “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for covid.” While New York's guidelines link to the CDC's “People with Certain Medical Conditions” page to describe “risk factors for severe illness,” New York specifically added consideration of race as a factor for prescription. The guidelines state: “Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from Covid-19.”As a result, in some cases identically situated "whites" and non-white are ineligible or eligible for certain treatments. Although the NYHD disputes the characterization of their guidelines as impermissibly racially discriminatory, many lawsuits have been filed challenging the guidelines as impermissible and illegal race discrimination. The first of those lawsuits was filed by Professor William Jacobson of Cornell who joins us to discuss the pending litigation in New York and in other states across the country. Featuring:-- Prof. William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic, Cornell Law School; President, Legal Insurrection

Internal tensions in the Supreme Court's standing doctrine have led to some unexpected fractures. Last term, in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, the Court considered a class action arising from Transunion's errors in the processing and use of the plaintiffs' personal credit information. By a vote of 5-4, the Court held that, while Congress had created a cause of action that on its face let all of the class members sue, only those whose information was shared with third parties had sufficiently concrete injuries to establish standing. Justice Thomas joined the court's three more liberal justices in dissent, arguing that Congress's creation of a cause of action was sufficient and pointing out numerous inconsistencies in the Court's standing doctrine. Of particular note, Justice Thomas cited a provocative concurring opinion from the 11th Circuit's Judge Newsom, who argued that standing has no basis in the original meaning of Constitution and that courts should instead look at whether a congressionally created cause of action violates the Constitution's separation of powers. Judge Newsom's opinion, and both the majority and the dissent in Transunion, spent considerable time discussing how courts should approach citizen suits, which have always been on the outer edge of the Court's standing jurisprudence and which several justices have said raise other serious separation of powers concerns. This webinar will have a lively discussion among three leading experts about what the future may hold for citizen suits, standing doctrine, and the separation of powersFeaturing:-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Prof. Robin Craig, Robert C. Packard Trustee Chair in Law, USC Gould School of Law-- Jonathan Brightbill, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP and former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment & Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice-- Moderator: Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC

On January 21, 2022, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey filed suit against Janet Yellen and the Treasury Department over its threat to withdraw federal funding if Governor Ducey did not alter school masking conditions. Ducey allocated over $160 million for schools but conditioned the money on those schools remaining open and not mandating masks. Two attorneys on the ground in Arizona join us to discuss this case. Featuring: -- Anni Foster, General Counsel, Governor Doug Ducey-- Moderator: Michael Bailey, General Counsel, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry

Although inflation has broadly scattered across the economy, it is the food we buy where inflation's bite is the most obvious. The Biden Administration has pointed the finger at industry consolidation as the culprit. It proposes a rewrite of the regulations implementing agricultural antitrust statutes as the remedy. Industry disagrees that consolidation is to blame and looks warily at the proposed regulations as harbingers of what is to come for antitrust policy more generally. What is to blame for $18/pound beef, and what if anything can be done to counteract the rapid price increases at the grocery store? How will businesses respond to the proposed regulatory changes? Sean Heather of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Mark Dopp, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of the North American Meat Institute; and Joe Maxwell, president of Farm Action and former Lieutenant Governor of Missouri will discuss the policy and legal options available. Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden of the U.S. Court of International Trade and former General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture will moderate the panel.Featuring:-- Mark Dopp, General Counsel, the North American Meat Institute-- Sean Heather, U.S. Chamber of Commerce-- Joe Maxwell, President, Farm Action -- Moderator: Hon. Stephen Vaden, Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade

This webinar will focus on spectrum policy in the 5G era and the recent increase in inter-agency spectrum turf wars. In recent years, there has been an uptick in the amount of involvement by other agencies, including the Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to name a few, in FCC spectrum band proceedings. As spectrum demands continue to increase and the importance of sharing rises, some of this proceeding involvement has led to conflicts of interest, delays, and other challenges. The webinar will explore some of the most recent conflicts, such as C-band and 5.9 GHz band, the 6 GHz court challenge, as well as the potential long-term impacts of these battles on spectrum policy at the FCC and beyond.Featuring:-- Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law, Michigan State University-- Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge-- Tricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP-- Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Legal Advisor, Commissioner Brendan Carr

Before the Supreme Court this term is the question of whether all pre-viability bans on abortion are unconstitutional. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the Court must address this question in light of its previous holdings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Shortly after oral argument in December 2021, law professor Richard Re encouraged the Court to adopt a gradualist approach, making room for the possibility that the justices could uphold both Mississippi's prohibition on abortions before 15-weeks gestation and its prior precedents in Roe and Casey. Law professor Eric Claeys has written a forthcoming article for the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy in which he takes a deep dive into the abortion precedents, concluding that the Court must either reaffirm or overturn those prior rulings.These two distinguished scholars join us to discuss the argument, the stakes, and more.Featuring: -- Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University-- Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

As federalism becomes an increasingly important principle of our constitutional structure, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has published a timely book titled, Who Decides? States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (Oxford, 2021). Judge Sutton, a former law clerk to Justices Lewis Powell and Antonin Scalia, argues that constitutional law in America--encompassing the systems of all 51 governments--should have a role in assessing the right balance of power among all branches of our state and federal governments.A distinguished group of legal thinkers and practitioners joins us to discuss this book.Featuring: -- Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit-- Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit-- Moderator: Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School

Technical standards like 5G and Wi-Fi are a key component to economic growth and innovation in emerging technologies. Patents that protect a standard's underlying technology are known as standard essential patents (SEPs). Over the last three administrations in the U.S., SEP policy has been the subject of controversy and tremendous uncertainty as a result of successive joint policy statements from the Department of Justice, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), and National Institute of Standards and Technology. The current administration is seeking to change policy once again in a manner many believe will deny U.S. owners of 5G and other SEPs the right to enforce their patents. Will this harm or help U.S. technological leadership and national security? This teleforum with former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu will inform listeners about these regulatory developments and how the latest draft policy statement might impact U.S. innovation and global technology leadership.Featuring:-- Andrei Iancu, Partner, Irell & Manella LLP

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general's motion to intervene on the commonwealth's behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, related to the rights of the unborn. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.Our expert will cover the case, the ruling, and its implications.Featuring: -- Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Join us for a webinar featuring Vikrant Reddy to discuss the Supreme Court decision in Wooden v. United States.Speaker:-- Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute

In October 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. J&J also entered into a funding agreement with LTL that assures that LTL will have the same, if not greater, ability to satisfy talc claims once the parties reach a plan of reorganization. J&J submits that the Chapter 11 restructuring is the only means by which LTL and its affiliates can reach a swift and equitable resolution for current and future claimants. Opposition argues the case does not serve a valid restructuring purpose, suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith. On February 25, the bankruptcy court in New Jersey sided with LTL and denied claimants' motion to dismiss. The claimants have indicated they will appeal the ruling.A divisional merger is a state-law transaction where a business entity divides itself into two new entities. It is similar in substance to other state-law transactions that result in the emergence of new legal entities. Controversy has arisen when—following the divisional merger—one of the new entities initiates Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, as LTL did.Professor Tony Casey of the University of Chicago Law School will address the interplay of divisional mergers and Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the context of the J&J litigation and LTL bankruptcy. He will review the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value, explain how a divisional merger can further that purpose in the mass tort context, and discuss how existing law protects against the potential for abuse. Featuring:-- Prof. Anthony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics, Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School

On February 25, 2022, Johnson & Johnson, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc., and Amerisourcebergen Corp. announced that they had agreed to finalize a reported $26 billion settlement to resolve approximately 3,000 lawsuits from state and local governments regarding the opioid abuse crisis. The private plaintiffs' trial firms representing the counties and municipalities filed the first lawsuit in California in 2014. The proposed settlement allocates approximately $2.3 billion for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The most controversial legal issue was whether the defendants' marketing created a “public nuisance.” The companies continue to face claims in Alabama, Washington, West Virginia and Oklahoma, where in November 2021 the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state's public nuisance statute did not extend to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids. On November 23, 2021, an Ohio federal jury found CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies liable for recklessly distributing opioids in Lake and Trumbull counties in Ohio. Rite Aid and Giant Eagle settled in 2021. U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster is scheduled to decide damages this spring. Please join us on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, at 2:00pm EST/11:00am PST, as John Shu, who has been following the national litigations, will hold a Zoom webinar to update us on the litigations in California, Oklahoma, and Ohio, and discuss their legal and strategic issues. Featuring:-- John Shu, Professor, Attorney, and Legal Commentator

In Unborn Human Life and Fundamental Rights: Leading Constitutional Cases under Scrutiny (Peter Lang, 2019), editors William L. Saunders and Pilar Zambrano have collected a series of essays covering over 10 different nations and jurisdictions and addressing human rights and the role of judiciaries at home and abroad in protecting those rights. Concluding reflections are offered by legal philosopher John Finnis.Professor Gerard Bradley will discuss his contribution to the volume, as well as the relevant and current issues both here and around the world.Featuring: Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University---This Zoom event is open to public registration.

Please join the Practice Groups for a timely webinar on how the upcoming Supreme Court nominee might shape law in the future. Prof. Dan Epps and Ethan Davis will consider the nominee's influence on criminal law, while Prof. William Marshall and Roger Severino will analyze possible effects on civil rights law. Featuring:-- Prof. Dan Epps, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis-- Ethan Davis, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding-- Prof. William Marshall, Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina-- Roger Severino, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center-- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

During President Biden's first year in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland rescinded two key memos that were part of the Trump Administration's stated regulatory reform agenda: the Sessions Memo, which prohibited Department of Justice (DOJ) components from issuing “guidance documents” that effectively bound the public without undergoing notice-and-comment rulemaking, and the Brand Memo, which prohibited the Department from using noncompliance with DOJ's or other agencies' nonbinding guidance documents as a basis for affirmative civil enforcement actions. Calling the procedures laid out in the Sessions and Brand memos “overly restrictive,” Attorney General Garland replaced these memos with the Garland memo, which largely makes it easier for the Department to issue guidance and to rely on its own or other agencies' guidance documents in enforcement actions. What will be the impacts and effects of the Garland memo? Is this a sea change in favor of regulation by guidance, or a recognition by DOJ that guidance documents do not have the force of law? How have regulated entities responded? Acting Associate Attorney General (2017-2019) Jesse Panuccio and Assistant U.S. Attorney (2011-2019) Christopher Sabis will discuss these issues, moderated by Assistant Attorney General (2017-2020) Beth Williams. Featuring: --Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP --Christopher Sabis, Member, Sherrard Roe Voigt Harbison --Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice --- To register, click the link above.