Podcasts about this teleforum

One year ago, the United States Department of Justice announced a series of indictments against major figures of the Venezuelan regime lead by Nicolas Maduro, including of Mr. Maduro himself. One significant case involves a Colombian businessman, Alex Saab, who has been described in the press as “Maduro’s financier.” Just two weeks ago, a court in Cape Verde, West Africa, ordered Mr. Saab to be extradited to the United States, just as another regional court ordered that he be freed. He has resisted extradition based on an appointment by the Venezuelan government as a “diplomat” on a “humanitarian mission” to Iran.This Teleforum will give listeners an update on where these cases stand as well as background on the nuances of prosecuting them. The speakers include Ryan Berg, a regional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael Nadler, a partner with the firm SFS Law in Miami, Florida, and former Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and who served as lead counsel in the cases against Mr. Saab as well as other Maduro-regime figures.Featuring: -- Ryan Berg, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute -- Michael B. Nadler, Partner, SFS Law -- Moderator: Harout Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper

Corpus linguistics has recently emerged as a method for addressing problems in legal interpretation. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural language, that can be designed to sample the linguistic conventions of a wide variety of speech communities, industries, or linguistic contexts. And corpora (plural of corpus) have begun to see increasing use by judges, scholars, and advocates, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. This Teleforum will first provide an overview for those unfamiliar with corpus linguistics, and then address advantages and limitations of using language evidence from linguistic corpora in legal interpretation, such as when interpreting contracts, statutes, or constitutions, as well as highlight the use of corpus linguistics in recent cases. Featuring: -- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

Corpus linguistics has recently emerged as a method for addressing problems in legal interpretation. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural language, that can be designed to sample the linguistic conventions of a wide variety of speech communities, industries, or linguistic contexts. And corpora (plural of corpus) have begun to see increasing use by judges, scholars, and advocates, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. This Teleforum will first provide an overview for those unfamiliar with corpus linguistics, and then address advantages and limitations of using language evidence from linguistic corpora in legal interpretation, such as when interpreting contracts, statutes, or constitutions, as well as highlight the use of corpus linguistics in recent cases. Featuring: -- Donald A. Daugherty, Jr., Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty-- Stephen C. Mouritsen, Shareholder, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless-- James C. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced indictments of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and several of his regime allies for drug trafficking and money laundering. This Teleforum will address the unique legal and political challenges involved in prosecuting a foreign dictator and will feature former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger F. Noriega, and Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University. Featuring: -- Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University-- Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs-- Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Associate, DLA Piper

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced indictments of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and several of his regime allies for drug trafficking and money laundering. This Teleforum will address the unique legal and political challenges involved in prosecuting a foreign dictator and will feature former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger F. Noriega, and Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University. Featuring: -- Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University-- Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs-- Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Associate, DLA Piper

Public notice and comment on rulemaking is a core requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, and creates the administrative record on which any subsequent judicial review will be based. Yet many people (even people who take the trouble to vote) seem to think that commenting on rules is difficult or futile, and therefore don’t participate – even when they care about the outcome. This Teleforum will discuss the practical mechanics of tracking the development of rules and filing timely comments; in fact, timely filing is about the only legal requirement for getting comments onto the record. It will describe the sorts of comments that tend to be effective in persuading an agency, including comments made directly by affected small entities without professional representation. It will also explain the concept of a “Public Interest Comment” which argues, not on behalf of any particular party or cause (however worthy), but in favor of a balanced resolution of the conflicting considerations that an agency must take into account.Featuring:-- Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center-- Prof. Brian F. Mannix, Research Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University

Public notice and comment on rulemaking is a core requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, and creates the administrative record on which any subsequent judicial review will be based. Yet many people (even people who take the trouble to vote) seem to think that commenting on rules is difficult or futile, and therefore don’t participate – even when they care about the outcome. This Teleforum will discuss the practical mechanics of tracking the development of rules and filing timely comments; in fact, timely filing is about the only legal requirement for getting comments onto the record. It will describe the sorts of comments that tend to be effective in persuading an agency, including comments made directly by affected small entities without professional representation. It will also explain the concept of a “Public Interest Comment” which argues, not on behalf of any particular party or cause (however worthy), but in favor of a balanced resolution of the conflicting considerations that an agency must take into account.Featuring:-- Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center-- Prof. Brian F. Mannix, Research Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University

Recently, members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives have introduced the "Loan Shark Prevention Act," which imposes a nationwide 15% interest rate ceiling on all consumer credit products, from credit cards to payday loans. They also propose to empower the United States Post Office to engage in the practice of consumer retail banking. This Teleforum examines the economics of interest-rate ceilings on consumer credit and the historical experience with such proposals as well as discussing the proposal to create a Post Office bank.Featuring:- Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association- Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Recently, members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives have introduced the "Loan Shark Prevention Act," which imposes a nationwide 15% interest rate ceiling on all consumer credit products, from credit cards to payday loans. They also propose to empower the United States Post Office to engage in the practice of consumer retail banking. This Teleforum examines the economics of interest-rate ceilings on consumer credit and the historical experience with such proposals as well as discussing the proposal to create a Post Office bank.Featuring:- Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association- Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Recently, members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives have introduced the "Loan Shark Prevention Act," which imposes a nationwide 15% interest rate ceiling on all consumer credit products, from credit cards to payday loans. They also propose to empower the United States Post Office to engage in the practice of consumer retail banking. This Teleforum examines the economics of interest-rate ceilings on consumer credit and the historical experience with such proposals as well as discussing the proposal to create a Post Office bank. Featuring: Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers AssociationTodd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School

Recently, members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives have introduced the "Loan Shark Prevention Act," which imposes a nationwide 15% interest rate ceiling on all consumer credit products, from credit cards to payday loans. They also propose to empower the United States Post Office to engage in the practice of consumer retail banking. This Teleforum examines the economics of interest-rate ceilings on consumer credit and the historical experience with such proposals as well as discussing the proposal to create a Post Office bank. Featuring: Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers AssociationTodd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School

This teleforum will discuss the Supreme Court argument in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., a case about the False Claims Act statute of limitations. In this case, the Court examined whether a relator can rely on the tolling provision of the statute of limitations, which allows a claim to be filed up to three years after the responsible government official learns of facts material to action, even if the government never intervenes. While the case presented two narrow issues—how long can a relator wait to file suit and who is the “responsible government official” whose knowledge of the facts can trigger the limitations period—the Court’s resolution of the case could have potentially touched on several hot-button issues and create ripples that materially change FCA jurisprudence. This Teleforum will discuss the decision and wheather the implications of the decisions are as far reaching as they could have been. Featuring: Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

This teleforum will discuss the Supreme Court argument in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., a case about the False Claims Act statute of limitations. In this case, the Court examined whether a relator can rely on the tolling provision of the statute of limitations, which allows a claim to be filed up to three years after the responsible government official learns of facts material to action, even if the government never intervenes. While the case presented two narrow issues—how long can a relator wait to file suit and who is the “responsible government official” whose knowledge of the facts can trigger the limitations period—the Court’s resolution of the case could have potentially touched on several hot-button issues and create ripples that materially change FCA jurisprudence. This Teleforum will discuss the decision and wheather the implications of the decisions are as far reaching as they could have been. Featuring: Brandon J. Moss, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Mark B. Sweet, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Ronald D. Rotunda was a highly-respected, widely-published professor of both Legal Ethics and Constitutional Law. He served on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society Professional Responsibility and Legal Education Practice Group from its creation until his death in March 2018. In his memory, the Practice Group has arranged to arrange a Teleforum at least annually on issues in legal ethics. The first Teleforum, titled "Ron Rotunda at the Intersection of Legal Ethics and Constitutional Law," will be presented by his long-time casebook co-author, Thomas D. Morgan, on Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at 2 pm EDT. This Teleforum will focus on lawyer advertising, which Professor Rotunda addressed early in his career, and lawyer rhetoric, whose attempted regulation Professor Rotunda condemned at the end of his career. Professor Morgan will also address Professor Rotunda's interest in technology and his vision of a legal profession whose regulatory burdens may be reduced to allow clients the freedom to pursue their legal rights using services they can better afford. Featuring: Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation L, George Washington University Law School

Ronald D. Rotunda was a highly-respected, widely-published professor of both Legal Ethics and Constitutional Law. He served on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society Professional Responsibility and Legal Education Practice Group from its creation until his death in March 2018. In his memory, the Practice Group has arranged to arrange a Teleforum at least annually on issues in legal ethics. The first Teleforum, titled "Ron Rotunda at the Intersection of Legal Ethics and Constitutional Law," will be presented by his long-time casebook co-author, Thomas D. Morgan, on Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at 2 pm EDT. This Teleforum will focus on lawyer advertising, which Professor Rotunda addressed early in his career, and lawyer rhetoric, whose attempted regulation Professor Rotunda condemned at the end of his career. Professor Morgan will also address Professor Rotunda's interest in technology and his vision of a legal profession whose regulatory burdens may be reduced to allow clients the freedom to pursue their legal rights using services they can better afford. Featuring: Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation L, George Washington University Law School

This Teleforum will provide an overview of criminal and civil enforcement provisions of environmental laws pertaining to water, air, soil, and hazardous materials. It will include a discussion of the factors that the government considers in deciding whether to pursue a criminal or civil case, and the prospects for enforcement and alternative resolutions under the current Administration. The Teleforum will be hosted by John Irving, a Partner at Holland & Knight LLP, whose practice and prior work as a prosecutor focuses on internal investigations, white collar defense, and environmental enforcement.Featuring:John S. Irving IV, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP 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 Teleforum will provide an overview of criminal and civil enforcement provisions of environmental laws pertaining to water, air, soil, and hazardous materials. It will include a discussion of the factors that the government considers in deciding whether to pursue a criminal or civil case, and the prospects for enforcement and alternative resolutions under the current Administration. The Teleforum will be hosted by John Irving, a Partner at Holland & Knight LLP, whose practice and prior work as a prosecutor focuses on internal investigations, white collar defense, and environmental enforcement.Featuring:John S. Irving IV, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP 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.

American patent law has witnessed a number of high-profile patent wars throughout history and today is no exception. One of the latest chapters is the ongoing battle between Apple and its chip supplier Qualcomm. Among the highlights in this saga, Apple has sued Qualcomm in multiple countries, including in a U.S. suit seeking over a billion dollars in damages, while Qualcomm last month obtained a judgment from a Chinese court ordering Apple to stop selling iPhone 6, 7, and 8 series phones in China. These developments are taking place against a backdrop of disappointing Apple revenues attributed to weak Chinese sales, as well as a shifting international trade environment. This Teleforum will bring together experts to discuss the issues at stake and the likely outcomes of the battle between these technology giants, as well as the larger implications for innovation and intellectual property law and policy.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Director, Media, Entertainment and Technology Law Program, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Los AngelesProf. Thomas F. Cotter, Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Kristen J. Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law 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.

American patent law has witnessed a number of high-profile patent wars throughout history and today is no exception. One of the latest chapters is the ongoing battle between Apple and its chip supplier Qualcomm. Among the highlights in this saga, Apple has sued Qualcomm in multiple countries, including in a U.S. suit seeking over a billion dollars in damages, while Qualcomm last month obtained a judgment from a Chinese court ordering Apple to stop selling iPhone 6, 7, and 8 series phones in China. These developments are taking place against a backdrop of disappointing Apple revenues attributed to weak Chinese sales, as well as a shifting international trade environment. This Teleforum will bring together experts to discuss the issues at stake and the likely outcomes of the battle between these technology giants, as well as the larger implications for innovation and intellectual property law and policy.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Director, Media, Entertainment and Technology Law Program, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Los AngelesProf. Thomas F. Cotter, Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Kristen J. Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law 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.

The Trump Administration has made clear that it is engaged in a regulatory reform effort. One stated goal of that effort is to ensure that administrative enforcement actions rely on legally binding authority such as laws and regulations and that enforcement actions are not brought for “violations” of non-binding materials such as guidance or staff views. The Department of Justice, which is the prime litigating authority for the federal government, has issued statements disclaiming department or agency guidance as legally binding authority. More recently, independent agencies, including the Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection issued an interagency statement stating that “guidance does not have the force and effect of law, and the agencies do not take enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance." And, most recently, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission stated that “all staff statements are nonbinding and create no enforceable legal rights or obligations of the Commission or other parties.” While potentially a positive step, significant questions remain about the scope of the statements and how they will be implemented in practice.This Teleforum will discuss the implications of these statements and this effort. Will this step rein in regulation through adjudication? Will this step reduce the issuance of guidance itself leading to enforcement against behaviors that could have been redirected through guidance? What role should the federal enforcement authorities play in signaling through guidance and statements what they find problematic when the laws are broad enough to not provide a clear message?Featuring: John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP 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.

The Trump Administration has made clear that it is engaged in a regulatory reform effort. One stated goal of that effort is to ensure that administrative enforcement actions rely on legally binding authority such as laws and regulations and that enforcement actions are not brought for “violations” of non-binding materials such as guidance or staff views. The Department of Justice, which is the prime litigating authority for the federal government, has issued statements disclaiming department or agency guidance as legally binding authority. More recently, independent agencies, including the Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection issued an interagency statement stating that “guidance does not have the force and effect of law, and the agencies do not take enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance." And, most recently, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission stated that “all staff statements are nonbinding and create no enforceable legal rights or obligations of the Commission or other parties.” While potentially a positive step, significant questions remain about the scope of the statements and how they will be implemented in practice.This Teleforum will discuss the implications of these statements and this effort. Will this step rein in regulation through adjudication? Will this step reduce the issuance of guidance itself leading to enforcement against behaviors that could have been redirected through guidance? What role should the federal enforcement authorities play in signaling through guidance and statements what they find problematic when the laws are broad enough to not provide a clear message?Featuring: John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP 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.

Government regulation is pervasive, complex and expensive to administer. Americans have a vital interest and real need to understand how the current regulatory system can best be improved and made to achieve its laudable objectives for health, safety and environmental protection using means that are both cost-effective and fully consistent with the rule of law. But can we make the regulatory system more effective without strengthening the administrative state and undermining the rule of law? Can regulatory reform be pursued in a manner that is compatible with the rule of law?This Teleforum brings together two speakers well-versed in regulation and regulatory reform. Professor Lambert and Mr. Davis will describe and discuss their differing approaches to reform, and their differing perspectives on the fundamental assumptions that undergird the current regulatory system.Featuring:J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for VirginiaProfessor Thom Lambert, Wall Chair in Corporate Law and Governance and Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law 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.

Government regulation is pervasive, complex and expensive to administer. Americans have a vital interest and real need to understand how the current regulatory system can best be improved and made to achieve its laudable objectives for health, safety and environmental protection using means that are both cost-effective and fully consistent with the rule of law. But can we make the regulatory system more effective without strengthening the administrative state and undermining the rule of law? Can regulatory reform be pursued in a manner that is compatible with the rule of law?This Teleforum brings together two speakers well-versed in regulation and regulatory reform. Professor Lambert and Mr. Davis will describe and discuss their differing approaches to reform, and their differing perspectives on the fundamental assumptions that undergird the current regulatory system.Featuring:J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for VirginiaProfessor Thom Lambert, Wall Chair in Corporate Law and Governance and Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law 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.

Should climate change responsibility be assessed in the courts or by the elected policymaking branches? This past week, a federal district court answered that question. Several municipalities in multiple states filed lawsuits against energy companies claiming those entities are liable for billions in damages for climate change based on theories of public nuisance. On June 25, 2018, federal Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued the first major ruling in one of these cases, dismissing one such lawsuit brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and others. The ruling is likely to have an impact on similar pending lawsuits and undoubtedly sets precedent regarding whether and how the courts can be accessed to bring climate change-associated liability claims. In its order, the court acknowledges the reality of climate change and its impacts, but it underscored that “This issue is not over science.” Indeed, the opinion focuses on the proper role of the courts in a system of separated powers in the face of a theory of liability that the court called “breathtaking” in scope. The opinion analyzes the proper, limited application of the public nuisance doctrine and cautions that these types of lawsuits may actually “interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus” on how to address climate change. This Teleforum will discuss what it takes to establish a public nuisance claim, the proper role of the courts in deciding hot button policy issues, other government branch prerogatives, imposing retroactive liability, extraterritorial application of law, and the jusiticiability of claims that may impact foreign policy. Featuring:Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law 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.

Should climate change responsibility be assessed in the courts or by the elected policymaking branches? This past week, a federal district court answered that question. Several municipalities in multiple states filed lawsuits against energy companies claiming those entities are liable for billions in damages for climate change based on theories of public nuisance. On June 25, 2018, federal Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued the first major ruling in one of these cases, dismissing one such lawsuit brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and others. The ruling is likely to have an impact on similar pending lawsuits and undoubtedly sets precedent regarding whether and how the courts can be accessed to bring climate change-associated liability claims. In its order, the court acknowledges the reality of climate change and its impacts, but it underscored that “This issue is not over science.” Indeed, the opinion focuses on the proper role of the courts in a system of separated powers in the face of a theory of liability that the court called “breathtaking” in scope. The opinion analyzes the proper, limited application of the public nuisance doctrine and cautions that these types of lawsuits may actually “interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus” on how to address climate change. This Teleforum will discuss what it takes to establish a public nuisance claim, the proper role of the courts in deciding hot button policy issues, other government branch prerogatives, imposing retroactive liability, extraterritorial application of law, and the jusiticiability of claims that may impact foreign policy. Featuring:Prof. Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law 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.

For over a decade, shareholder activism has been on the rise, affecting an increasing number of publicly-traded companies. Essentially a re-brand of the 1980s-era “corporate raiders,” today’s activists are primarily institutional shareholders that seek to profit by forcing change at companies – whether by seeking board seats, pursuing managerial purges, or effectuating transactions for short-term gain. Shareholder activism is a battle for corporate control, accomplished largely through proxy fights and publicity campaigns. This Teleforum provides an overview of the shareholder activism landscape, strategies and counter strategies to protect against activist tactics, and will assess the prospect for legal reforms intended to stem the flow of activist campaigns. Featuring: Jason Levine, Litigation Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP Lawrence Elbaum, Co-head of Shareholder Activism Practice, Vinson & Elkins LLPTeleforum 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.

For over a decade, shareholder activism has been on the rise, affecting an increasing number of publicly-traded companies. Essentially a re-brand of the 1980s-era “corporate raiders,” today’s activists are primarily institutional shareholders that seek to profit by forcing change at companies – whether by seeking board seats, pursuing managerial purges, or effectuating transactions for short-term gain. Shareholder activism is a battle for corporate control, accomplished largely through proxy fights and publicity campaigns. This Teleforum provides an overview of the shareholder activism landscape, strategies and counter strategies to protect against activist tactics, and will assess the prospect for legal reforms intended to stem the flow of activist campaigns. Featuring: Jason Levine, Litigation Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP Lawrence Elbaum, Co-head of Shareholder Activism Practice, Vinson & Elkins LLPTeleforum 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.

A little-known case just concluded this week, but it may have big implications for the important national dialogue about conflicts between faith and sexual identity. In Myrick v. Warren, a federal judge ruled that the State of North Carolina violated federal law when it forced a magistrate named Gayle Myrick to resign because of her religious beliefs about marriage. The judge’s ruling comes ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CCRC. Both Myrick and Masterpiece raise important questions about conscience and LGBT rights. This Teleforum will address Myrick v. Warren and its relationship to the broader issue of LGBT rights and religious liberty. Featuring: Stephanie Barclay, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 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.

A little-known case just concluded this week, but it may have big implications for the important national dialogue about conflicts between faith and sexual identity. In Myrick v. Warren, a federal judge ruled that the State of North Carolina violated federal law when it forced a magistrate named Gayle Myrick to resign because of her religious beliefs about marriage. The judge’s ruling comes ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CCRC. Both Myrick and Masterpiece raise important questions about conscience and LGBT rights. This Teleforum will address Myrick v. Warren and its relationship to the broader issue of LGBT rights and religious liberty. Featuring: Stephanie Barclay, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 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 Teleforum addresses whether there is a need to amend Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what counts as an invention eligible for receiving patent protection. Between 2010 and 2014, the Supreme Court issued four decisions interpreting and applying Section 101 to business, high-tech, and biotech inventions. In all four cases, the Court held that the patents were invalid for claiming abstract ideas, laws of nature, or facts of nature. Since 2014, federal courts have invalidated many patents in applying the Court’s new rules on patent eligibility. The Patent Office is also rejecting many patent applications. Some people in the innovation industries express concern that the Court’s decisions are vague and provide no objective framework as to whether a claim is patent eligible. Three trade associations, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA), and the American Bar Association’s IP Section, have released proposed amendments to Section 101. Others in the innovation industries maintain that the Supreme Court was right to reinvigorate patent eligibility doctrine, tightening up this basic legal standard for obtaining a property right in a new invention or discovery, because too many overbroad and vague patents had been issued in recent years by the Patent Office. These invalid patents, they contend, are clogging the gears of the innovation economy by imposing unnecessary costs on other innovators and consumers. This Teleforum discusses the proposed amendments to the Patent Act, and whether legislative reform of Section 101 is necessary or not.Featuring:Mr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy & ConsultingMr. Dana S. Rao, Vice President, Intellectual Property and Litigation, Adobe Systems, Inc.Mr. Robert Sachs, President, Robert R. Sachs PCModerator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University 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 Teleforum addresses whether there is a need to amend Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what counts as an invention eligible for receiving patent protection. Between 2010 and 2014, the Supreme Court issued four decisions interpreting and applying Section 101 to business, high-tech, and biotech inventions. In all four cases, the Court held that the patents were invalid for claiming abstract ideas, laws of nature, or facts of nature. Since 2014, federal courts have invalidated many patents in applying the Court’s new rules on patent eligibility. The Patent Office is also rejecting many patent applications. Some people in the innovation industries express concern that the Court’s decisions are vague and provide no objective framework as to whether a claim is patent eligible. Three trade associations, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA), and the American Bar Association’s IP Section, have released proposed amendments to Section 101. Others in the innovation industries maintain that the Supreme Court was right to reinvigorate patent eligibility doctrine, tightening up this basic legal standard for obtaining a property right in a new invention or discovery, because too many overbroad and vague patents had been issued in recent years by the Patent Office. These invalid patents, they contend, are clogging the gears of the innovation economy by imposing unnecessary costs on other innovators and consumers. This Teleforum discusses the proposed amendments to the Patent Act, and whether legislative reform of Section 101 is necessary or not.Featuring:Mr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy & ConsultingMr. Dana S. Rao, Vice President, Intellectual Property and Litigation, Adobe Systems, Inc.Mr. Robert Sachs, President, Robert R. Sachs PCModerator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University 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 the recent Restoring Internet Freedom order, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to repeal the Obama administration’s network neutrality rules and restore the historical classification of broadband Internet as a lightly-regulated information service. A fierce public debate has emerged on the rulemaking’s implications for investment, innovation, competition, and consumer access to online content. In predicting the future Internet landscape, advocates on both sides have focused on the experiences of foreign jurisdictions in regulating both ISPs and edge providers, and how sanctions on content prioritization have affected consumers abroad.This Teleforum features a distinguished panel with expertise in European, African, Asian, Latin American, and Canadian telecommunications law, and considers lessons from foreign regulators’ attempts to police the Internet ecosystem.Featuring:Professor Eli Noam, Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility, Columbia Business SchoolProfessor Roslyn Layton, PhD Fellow for the Center for Communication, Media and Information Studies at Aalborg University and Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise InstitutePaul Beaudry, Professor, Lawyer and Research Associate, Montreal Economic Institute 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 the recent Restoring Internet Freedom order, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to repeal the Obama administration’s network neutrality rules and restore the historical classification of broadband Internet as a lightly-regulated information service. A fierce public debate has emerged on the rulemaking’s implications for investment, innovation, competition, and consumer access to online content. In predicting the future Internet landscape, advocates on both sides have focused on the experiences of foreign jurisdictions in regulating both ISPs and edge providers, and how sanctions on content prioritization have affected consumers abroad.This Teleforum features a distinguished panel with expertise in European, African, Asian, Latin American, and Canadian telecommunications law, and considers lessons from foreign regulators’ attempts to police the Internet ecosystem.Featuring:Professor Eli Noam, Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility, Columbia Business SchoolProfessor Roslyn Layton, PhD Fellow for the Center for Communication, Media and Information Studies at Aalborg University and Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise InstitutePaul Beaudry, Professor, Lawyer and Research Associate, Montreal Economic Institute 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 two recently filed lawsuits conservative organizations have complained that Google has restricted their access to readers. Gab, which provides its own site for conservative and alt right voices, complained when Google refused to include Gab’s app in its app store. Per Gab, Google’s true reason for this was to stymie Gab’s competition with Google’s business partner Twitter, violating the antitrust laws. Prager University complained that Google and YouTube unlawfully censored its educational videos by restricting their availability to younger viewers. Prager asserts that its videos are fully appropriate for younger viewers and that Google/YouTube’s real objection is to their admittedly conservative point of view. PragerU’s counsel, former California governor Pete Wilson, asserts that this “is speech discrimination plain and simple, censorship based entirely on unspecified ideological objection to the message or on the perceived identity and political viewpoint of the speaker” and thus violates both the First Amendment and California law.At the same time Google and Facebook assert they are free to run their private businesses as they deem appropriate. They also face intensive pressure from American politicians and foreign governments to moderate their platforms. Facebook and Google were called before a committee of the House of Representatives, which assailed them for doing too little about “fake news” on their sites. In Germany, Facebook was recently compelled to remove a post critical of Islamic migrants.This Teleforum will consider the obligations, if any, that American law, including the antitrust laws and the First Amendment, place on popular social media outlets. It will consider whether they can, or can be required to, restrict online content that some deem objectionable. Featuring: Prof. Thomas C. Arthur, L. Q. C. Lamar Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law, Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute & Supervisor, Privacy Law Certificate 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 two recently filed lawsuits conservative organizations have complained that Google has restricted their access to readers. Gab, which provides its own site for conservative and alt right voices, complained when Google refused to include Gab’s app in its app store. Per Gab, Google’s true reason for this was to stymie Gab’s competition with Google’s business partner Twitter, violating the antitrust laws. Prager University complained that Google and YouTube unlawfully censored its educational videos by restricting their availability to younger viewers. Prager asserts that its videos are fully appropriate for younger viewers and that Google/YouTube’s real objection is to their admittedly conservative point of view. PragerU’s counsel, former California governor Pete Wilson, asserts that this “is speech discrimination plain and simple, censorship based entirely on unspecified ideological objection to the message or on the perceived identity and political viewpoint of the speaker” and thus violates both the First Amendment and California law.At the same time Google and Facebook assert they are free to run their private businesses as they deem appropriate. They also face intensive pressure from American politicians and foreign governments to moderate their platforms. Facebook and Google were called before a committee of the House of Representatives, which assailed them for doing too little about “fake news” on their sites. In Germany, Facebook was recently compelled to remove a post critical of Islamic migrants.This Teleforum will consider the obligations, if any, that American law, including the antitrust laws and the First Amendment, place on popular social media outlets. It will consider whether they can, or can be required to, restrict online content that some deem objectionable. Featuring: Prof. Thomas C. Arthur, L. Q. C. Lamar Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law, Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute & Supervisor, Privacy Law Certificate 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.

Last month, in a challenge brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin federal district court ruled that the “parsonage allowance,” 26 U.S.C. § 107(2), violates the federal Establishment Clause. Enacted in 1954, the “parsonage allowance” allows clergy to exclude from gross income a rental allowance received as part of his or her compensation. In Gaylor v. Mnuchin, the district court found that 1) the allowance lacked a secular purpose or effect and 2) a reasonable observer would perceive it to be a governmental endorsement of religion. The case is likely to be appealed to the Seventh Circuit in the next month and could be heard by the United States Supreme Court in a future term.This Teleforum will examine the nuts and bolts of the parsonage allowance, including its history as well as the practical impact that its loss would impose on religious congregations nationwide. The primary arguments for and against its constitutionality will be explored. Featuring:Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawJohn Van Drunen, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)Michael Martin, Vice President and Legal Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) 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.

Last month, in a challenge brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin federal district court ruled that the “parsonage allowance,” 26 U.S.C. § 107(2), violates the federal Establishment Clause. Enacted in 1954, the “parsonage allowance” allows clergy to exclude from gross income a rental allowance received as part of his or her compensation. In Gaylor v. Mnuchin, the district court found that 1) the allowance lacked a secular purpose or effect and 2) a reasonable observer would perceive it to be a governmental endorsement of religion. The case is likely to be appealed to the Seventh Circuit in the next month and could be heard by the United States Supreme Court in a future term.This Teleforum will examine the nuts and bolts of the parsonage allowance, including its history as well as the practical impact that its loss would impose on religious congregations nationwide. The primary arguments for and against its constitutionality will be explored. Featuring:Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawJohn Van Drunen, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)Michael Martin, Vice President and Legal Counsel, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) 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.

Prosecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their own misconduct. For example, even if a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence in violation of professional ethics and a defendant’s constitutional rights, and this willful misconduct results in an innocent person spending decades behind bars for a crime of which they are subsequently exonerated—the prosecutor remains immune from civil liability.The policy of absolute prosecutorial immunity comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court, which took 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s command that “every person” who, acting under color of law, violates the rights of another, “shall be liable to the party injured,” and added “except for prosecutors.” Was the Court’s originalist reasoning sound? Would a different policy open the floodgates and subject prosecutors to endless litigation, as the majority feared? And are there really other ways of ensuring proper accountability for some of the most powerful actors in our system of government?This Teleforum considers whether it is time to reconsider absolute prosecutorial immunity and, if so, how we might balance the need for accountability and redress with the very real concerns of prosecutorial independence and efficacy.Featuring:Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.Geoffrey D. Wilson, Director At-Large, Central District of California, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys 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.

Prosecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their own misconduct. For example, even if a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence in violation of professional ethics and a defendant’s constitutional rights, and this willful misconduct results in an innocent person spending decades behind bars for a crime of which they are subsequently exonerated—the prosecutor remains immune from civil liability.The policy of absolute prosecutorial immunity comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court, which took 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s command that “every person” who, acting under color of law, violates the rights of another, “shall be liable to the party injured,” and added “except for prosecutors.” Was the Court’s originalist reasoning sound? Would a different policy open the floodgates and subject prosecutors to endless litigation, as the majority feared? And are there really other ways of ensuring proper accountability for some of the most powerful actors in our system of government?This Teleforum considers whether it is time to reconsider absolute prosecutorial immunity and, if so, how we might balance the need for accountability and redress with the very real concerns of prosecutorial independence and efficacy.Featuring:Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.Geoffrey D. Wilson, Director At-Large, Central District of California, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys 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.

The Trump administration has taken a number of significant steps to provide the regulatory relief that candidate Trump repeatedly promised to provide to get the economy growing again. Working with Congress, the President used the Congressional Review Act to veto an unprecedented number of regulations issued in the last days of the Obama administration. Early in his term, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771 that established a one-in-two-out regulation reduction requirement and compliance cost caps for agency rulemaking. The EPA has begun the process to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and has declared an end to the “war on coal.”As a result of Trump administration initiatives, the number of new federal regulations currently under development has fallen significantly from the numbers seen in recent years. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether these relief measures will create any lasting limit on the long-term expansion of the administrative state. Do rollbacks constitute reform? If not, what would real and lasting regulatory reform look like? What kind of reforms are needed to restore the constitutional rule of law essential for the preservation of liberty and the promotion of prosperity? This Teleforum brings together a noted business leader and legal scholar to share their perspectives on this critically important subject. Featuring:John A. Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest School of BusinessProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman, Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolTeleforum 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.

The Trump administration has taken a number of significant steps to provide the regulatory relief that candidate Trump repeatedly promised to provide to get the economy growing again. Working with Congress, the President used the Congressional Review Act to veto an unprecedented number of regulations issued in the last days of the Obama administration. Early in his term, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771 that established a one-in-two-out regulation reduction requirement and compliance cost caps for agency rulemaking. The EPA has begun the process to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and has declared an end to the “war on coal.”As a result of Trump administration initiatives, the number of new federal regulations currently under development has fallen significantly from the numbers seen in recent years. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether these relief measures will create any lasting limit on the long-term expansion of the administrative state. Do rollbacks constitute reform? If not, what would real and lasting regulatory reform look like? What kind of reforms are needed to restore the constitutional rule of law essential for the preservation of liberty and the promotion of prosperity? This Teleforum brings together a noted business leader and legal scholar to share their perspectives on this critically important subject. Featuring:John A. Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest School of BusinessProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman, Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolTeleforum 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.

Leaks of classified or politically sensitive information have become part of the daily news cycle. With them, people like Assange, Snowden, and Manning have become household names. Some believe leakers to be patriots; others consider them traitors. This morally-charged debate has dominated conversations about leaks, often at the expense of analyzing why leakers leak, the tedious procedures and mechanics of investigating leakers, and what the government considers when deciding how appropriately to appropriately respond once a leaker is identified.This Teleforum will accordingly focus on the motivations of leakers and countermeasures to prevent leaking and identify a leaker after the fact. Our speakers will also discuss government considerations when deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. In addition to the strictly legal considerations, including what might distinguish lawful whistleblowing from potentially criminal conduct, we will discuss resource constraints, procedural challenges, the extent to which political considerations may come into play as to how certain leaks are countered and addressed, as well as whether the government’s response to insider threats has helped or harmed the quest to prevent leaks.Featuring:J. Patrick Rowan, Partner, McGuireWoods LLPProf. Mark S. Zaid, Adjunct Faculty, Johns Hopkins UniversityModerator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group 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.

Leaks of classified or politically sensitive information have become part of the daily news cycle. With them, people like Assange, Snowden, and Manning have become household names. Some believe leakers to be patriots; others consider them traitors. This morally-charged debate has dominated conversations about leaks, often at the expense of analyzing why leakers leak, the tedious procedures and mechanics of investigating leakers, and what the government considers when deciding how appropriately to appropriately respond once a leaker is identified.This Teleforum will accordingly focus on the motivations of leakers and countermeasures to prevent leaking and identify a leaker after the fact. Our speakers will also discuss government considerations when deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. In addition to the strictly legal considerations, including what might distinguish lawful whistleblowing from potentially criminal conduct, we will discuss resource constraints, procedural challenges, the extent to which political considerations may come into play as to how certain leaks are countered and addressed, as well as whether the government’s response to insider threats has helped or harmed the quest to prevent leaks.Featuring:J. Patrick Rowan, Partner, McGuireWoods LLPProf. Mark S. Zaid, Adjunct Faculty, Johns Hopkins UniversityModerator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group 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.

For decades, the DOJ’s civil rights enforcement policies regarding lending, school discipline, and criminal justice have been premised on the belief that relaxing standards and otherwise reducing the frequency of adverse outcomes will reduce percentage racial differences in rates of experiencing those outcomes. Exactly the opposite is the case. Generally reducing any adverse outcome tends to increase, not decrease, percentage racial differences in rates of experiencing those outcomes. This Teleforum discussed whether the Sessions DOJ will be able to understand the statistical issues and, if so, how such understanding should affect civil rights enforcement policies. Click here to access materials referenced in this Podcast. Click here for Jim's website. -- Featuring: James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law and Moderator: Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity.

In recent years, there have been a growing number of cases where people have been freed from prison after they were exonerated or their convictions were overturned. Some states have statutes that provide compensation under some circumstances to such individuals, but the scope of those statutes and their applicability varies, with other states providing no means of compensation at all. A number of advocacy groups are pushing for changes. What, if anything, should be done? What kind of compensation are the wrongfully imprisoned entitled to? What kind of financial obligations for these cases can state treasuries bear? What is the perspective of law enforcement on these questions? This Teleforum explored these and related issues. -- Featuring: David LaBahn, President and CEO, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

This Teleforum explores the foundation for Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretation, and the implications of that foundation. In particular, it considers whether the Supreme Court’s justification of Chevron as deriving from an implicit delegation of interpretive primacy to an agency within the context of taking action with the force of law is justifiable. It also considers whether a better justification is the implicit constraint inherent in Article III of the Constitution that courts should avoid engaging in policy decisionmaking to the extent possible when performing their judicial functions. It goes on to consider the implications of these two different justifications for Chevron, potentially addressing the applicability of Chevron to actions that do not carry the force of law (i.e. Chevron’s step zero), Chevron’s major question exception, the appropriate judicial inquiry at step two of Chevron, and perhaps even the extent to which Congress can override the Chevron doctrine as a canon of statutory interpretation. -- Featuring: Mark Seidenfeld, Patricia A. Dore Professor of Administrative Law, Florida State University College of Law.

On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. The Executive Order instructs federal agencies to identify two existing regulations for repeal for each new regulation proposed. The Order further instructs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to set an incremental cost target for each agency for each future fiscal year. Subject to certain exceptions, each agency must meet its target by offsetting the costs of new regulations by cost savings from repealed rules. -- A lawsuit has been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The complaint argues, among other things, that the Order violates the separation of powers, the President's obligations under the Take Care Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., is the Deputy Solicitor General of West Virginia and counsel of record on an amicus brief co-filed with the State of Wisconsin on behalf of a 14-state coalition supporting the legality of the Executive Order. Mr. Johnson joined us to discuss the Order and the pending litigation. This Teleforum is the fourth in our Executive Order Teleforum Series. -- Featuring: Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General of West Virginia.

On May 4, President Trump signed a Religious Liberty Executive Order relaxing IRS enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which bans tax-exempt organizations like churches from political speech and activities. The “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” Executive Order also directs “the Secretary of Health and Human Services” to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.” -- An earlier version of the Executive Order was leaked in February, and contained many provisions, specifically about LGBTQ discrimination and federal contractors, which did not make it into the final. Prof. Carl Esbeck of the University of Missouri School of Law and Mr. Gregory Baylor of the Alliance Defending Freedom joined us to discuss the order and its precursor. This Teleforum is the third in our Executive Order Teleforum Series. -- Featuring: Mr. Gregory Baylor, Senior Counsel & Director of the Center for Religious Schools, Alliance Defending Freedom and Prof. Carl Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law/ Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law.

This Teleforum discussed what Victor Schwartz has labelled "Deep-Pocket Jurisprudence™." According to Mr. Schwartz, this occurs when state appellate courts expand tort law to include an innocent defendant because the wrongdoer is "judgment proof" or cannot be reached by the judicial process. The Supreme Court of Iowa has used the term and condemned the practice. -- This call focused on the possible enactment of federal civil justice reform. On March 9 and 10th 2017 the House of Representatives passed three federal civil justice reform measures, namely the H.R. 720, Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, H.R. 725, Innocent Party Protection Act and H.R.925, the Fairness in Class Litigation Act. Each enjoy strong support from Speaker Paul Ryan and this marks the earliest in a congressional term that such federal civil justice reform measures have passed the House. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether they will pass through the Senate and be approved by President Trump. -- Featuring: Victor E. Schwartz, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

During the 2008 financial crisis, Congress provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with billions of dollars in emergency funds to keep them afloat, supplemented by the investments of private investors who bet that these entities would return to profitability. In 2012, just as Fannie and Freddie were indeed becoming profitable again, the Government instituted a "net worth sweep" that required them to remit to the government nearly all of their profits every quarter. Fannie and Freddie have paid the government over $246 billion so far. In the process, the stock was rendered virtually worthless. Investors filed myriad lawsuits as the net worth sweep came into effect. After four years of litigation and an initial dismissal by the district court, the D.C. Circuit has now largely affirmed but also sent key contract-based claims for monetary relief back to the district court for further review. This Teleforum discusses this historic litigation, its implications for the housing market and the proper role of the Government, and the investors' prospects for success on their claims. -- Featuring: John Carney, Editor, Breitbart News and Jason A. Levine, Litigation Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP.

In 1996, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Before an executive agency rule—broadly defined to include agency guidance documents—can take effect, the CRA requires the agency to submit it to Congress and the Government Accountability Office. The CRA provides fast-track procedures for Congress to overrule any rule with a joint resolution of disapproval if the President signs it into law (or Congress overrides any veto). The expedited procedures may be used during the first 60 session days after the rule is submitted and during the first 60 session days of the next session if the rule was submitted near the end of the previous session. The only successful invalidation of a regulation prior to this year was in 2001, when the Department of Labor ergonomics rule issued at the end of the Clinton Administration was voided. -- In the last few months, there has been renewed attention to the CRA, with Congress’ action to overrule many more rules. And some have asserted that the law may have much broader implications for rules passed over the past 8 years and not previously sent to Congress as the CRA requires. -- Former Congressman David McIntosh, who sponsored the CRA, and former congressional counsel to Mr. McIntosh, Todd Gaziano, will join us to discuss the ins and outs of the CRA and its potential applications in the coming months. This Teleforum is the second installment in our Legal Options for the New Administration series. -- Featuring: Hon. David M. McIntosh, President of the Club for Growth and Vice Chairman of The Federalist Society and Todd F. Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law and Executive Director of Pacific Legal Foundation’s DC Center.

President Trump took a step toward fulfilling his campaign promise to cut regulations last week when he signed an executive order calling for two regulations to be eliminated for every new one issued. The president has indicated that the order will yield “the largest ever cut by far in terms of regulations.” But some are worried that it is a Sophie’s choice for regulatory agencies, and the order will change how regulators do business in the U.S. -- Professor Susan Dudley, director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center explained what the order does and does not do. Jitinder Kohli, former head of the UK Better Regulation Executive, described lessons learned from the UK’s “one-in-three-out” policy. This Teleforum was the first episode in the Executive Order Teleforum Series. -- Featuring: Professor Susan Dudley, Director, George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and Jitinder Kohli, Director in Public Sector Practice, Deloitte Consulting.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was anticipated to be one of the most significant cases of the Supreme Court’s term. In Friedrichs, the Court was considering whether to overrule its prior decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which held that public employees can be required to financially support union collective-bargaining with government, but not union political activities. In 2014, the Court sharply criticized Abood’s rationales in Harris v. Quinn, but stopped short of overruling it. Friedrichs was primed to be the final word on Abood’s continuing validity. However, with Justice Scalia’s passing in February, the Court deadlocked 4-4 in Friedrichs, and Abood remains the law of land. -- This Teleforum explored the legal landscape post-Friedrichs. This includes the other cases challenging Abood that are pending in the lower courts, and the legal arguments for and against upholding Abood. It also includes cases that concern related matters, such as whether individuals can be required to affirmatively object to paying “non-chargeable” union dues under Abood, and whether individuals who are not full-fledged employees can be included in systems of exclusive representation in the wake of Harris. -- Featuring: Scott A. Kronland, Partner, Altshuler Berzon LLP and William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.