FedSoc Forums is a virtual discussion series dedicated to providing expert analysis and intellectual commentary on today’s most pressing legal and policy issues. Produced by The Federalist Society’s Practice Groups, FedSoc Forum strives to create balanced conversations in various formats, such as monologues, debates, or panel discussions. In addition to regular episodes, FedSoc Forum features special content covering specific topics in the legal world, such as:
Courthouse Steps: A series of rapid response discussions breaking down all the latest SCOTUS cases after oral argument or final decision
A Seat at the Sitting: A monthly series that runs during the Court’s term featuring a panel of constitutional experts discussing the Supreme Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting
Litigation Update: A series that provides the latest updates in important ongoing cases from all levels of government
The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Dubin v. United States
Feb 27, 2023
Show notes
On February 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard Oral Argument in Dubin v. United States. At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft. Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal. Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes. In this webinar, we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went before the Court the same day this case is argued. Featuring: --John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Gonzalez v. Google
Feb 21, 2023
Show notes On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google. After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms. The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information? In this recorded webinar, Erik Jaffe broke down oral argument in this case. Featuring: --Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
A Seat at the Sitting - February 2023
Feb 21, 2023
Show notes
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this episode are included below. Gonzalez v. Google (February 21) - Telecommunications; Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act allows social media companies to make targeted recommendations of information provided by another content provider, or only limits the liability of such services when they engage in traditional editorial functions. Twitter v. Taamneh (February 22) - Telecommunications; Whether a defendant providing generic services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance to terrorists using the platform under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use. Dubin v. United States (February 27) - Criminal Law; Whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense. New York v. New Jersey (February 27) - Whether the Supreme Court should issue declaratory judgment and/or enjoin New Jersey from withdrawing from its Waterfront Commission Compact with New York, which grants the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor broad regulatory and law-enforcement powers over all operations at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Biden v. Nebraska (February 28) - Federalism, Administrative Law; (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious. Department of Education v. Brown (February 28) - Federalism; (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner. Featuring: --Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC --John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding --Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director of the Intellectual Property, Information & --Communications Law Program, Michigan State University --Moderator: Robert S. Driscoll, Shareholder, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
Does the Administrative Procedure Act Provide for Universal Vacatur?
Feb 17, 2023
Show notes Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act instructs courts to "set aside" agency action that is unlawful. These two words—"set aside"—have sparked much debate among lawyers, jurists, and scholars. In particular, administrative law enthusiasts disagree about whether the "set aside" language means that courts must enter universal injunctions against unlawful regulations. Some suggest that "set aside" contemplates wholesale invalidation of regulations. Others take the position that the scope of the "set aside" remedy is more limited. In United States v. Texas, which is before the Supreme Court this term, the Court is set to decide whether the "set aside" language requires universal vacatur of regulations. In advance of the Court's ruling, this teleforum panel discussed discuss this difficult question. Featuring: --Hon. Beth A. Williams, Member, United States Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School, and former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice --Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law and Thomas F. Bergin Teaching Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law --Prof. Ron Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law --[Moderator] Judge Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy & Mass Torts: A Review of the Third Circuit’s LTL Opinion
Feb 16, 2023
Show notes In 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The goal was to resolve all current and future claims fairly and efficiently. Opposition filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing it does not serve a valid restructuring purpose and suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith. In February 2022, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL, holding that LTL’s filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed Chief Judge Kaplan and narrowly held in favor of claimants. The case is now under appeal for en banc review by the Third Circuit. Given the enormous national significance of the issue for corporate liability and civil justice, this case may advance to the Supreme Court for further adjudication. In this recorded webinar a panel of bankruptcy law experts discuss the Third Circuit ruling, its impact, significance, and the path forward, including how to assess both the split between Chief Judge Kaplan and the Third Circuit. The panel discusses the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value and discuss the Third Circuit’s ruling in light of other Circuits that are reviewing similar legal questions. The panel will review core questions that the Third Circuit left unanswered and share their expert perspectives on the ruling’s precedent and what it may mean for mass tort litigation going forward. Featuring: --Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School --Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law
The Respect for Marriage Act & Religious Liberty: At Odds or Unaffected?
Feb 15, 2023
Show notes In December 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA). The bill (1) repeals section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which permitted states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages created in other states; (2) forbids those acting “under of state law” to withhold recognition of marriages created in other states on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin; (3) creates mechanisms to enforce that prohibition; and (4) requires the federal government to recognize marriages validly created in one or more states. The RFMA also includes provisions relating to religious liberty. Supporters of the bill claimed that portions of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization raised the specter of the Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage). They argued that the bill would be needed in the event the Court ever overturned Obergefell. Debate centered on (1) whether legislation to protect same-sex marriage was necessary; (2) the extent to which it would threaten the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and (3) the efficacy of the religious liberty provisions in the bill. Now in the wake of the RFMA passing, those discussions continue. To what degree does the RFMA affect or possibly impinge on religious liberty? Has anything really changed, or is this simply the codification of the status quo? Is this a statute ripe for abuse that threatens the exercise of religious liberty, or are the warnings issued concerning it perhaps overblown? Our panel of experts discussed these questions and others in this panel analyzing the Respect for Marriage Act, what it is, and what it means for religious liberty. Featuring: --Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law / Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law --Gregory S. Baylor, Senior Counsel & Director of the Center for Religious Schools, Alliance Defending Freedom --[Moderator] Matt Clark, President, Alabama Center for Law and Liberty
The OFCCP Under the Current Administration
Feb 09, 2023
Show notes
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) reports to the Secretary of Labor and is tasked with overseeing federal contractors and subcontractors ensuring they adhere to nondiscrimination laws and regulations. OFCCP’s priorities and budget tend to vary greatly between presidential administrations. The Biden Administration has announced a number of reforms since 2020 including a focus on parental leave policies, intersectional discrimination, affirmative action, and more. How have these reforms fared? And what does the future hold? Craig Leen, OFCCP Director under President Trump, and Shirley Wilcher, OFCCP Deputy Assistant Secretary under President Clinton, will join us to discuss these questions and more. Featuring: Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates and Former Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor Shirley J. Wilcher, Executive Director, American Association for Access Equity and Diversity (AAAED) and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor [Moderator] Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association and Former Deputy Director, OFCCP, U.S. Department of Labor
Litigation Update: Groff v. DeJoy: Religious Liberty in the Workplace?
Feb 07, 2023
Show notes
Join Stephanie Taub, Bruce Cameron, Blaine Hutchinson for discussion on Groff v. Dejoy, which was recently added to the Supreme Court docket. This case highlights questions at the intersection of religious liberty and workplace accommodation. Gerald Groff alleges workplace discrimination by the U.S. Postal Service based on his faith under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. His refusal to work Sunday shifts due to Sabbath observance resulted in a penalty and sparked a contentious legal debate. Register now to stay up-to-date on this important case that has the potential to shape the future of religious liberty in the workplace. Featuring: --Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute --Bruce Cameron, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund --Blaine Hutchison, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund
Arbitration and the Supremes: A Roundup of Recent and Anticipated Supreme Court Arbitration Precedents
Feb 02, 2023
Show notes
Domestic and international arbitration has been the subject of considerable activity before the U.S. Supreme Court over most of the last decade. The Supreme Court’s last term (2021-2022) was no exception, with the Court deciding five arbitration-related cases, with additional cases in the Court’s current term. This program concentrated on recent and currently Supreme Court pending cases concerning international and domestic arbitration, as well as hot topics before the Circuit Courts that may rise to the Court in the near future. Featuring: --Manuel Farach, Shareholder, Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A. --Joshua B. Simmons, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP --Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Of Counsel, DLA Piper
Section 230 Goes to Court: Gonzalez v. Google and the Future of the Electronic Town Square
Jan 31, 2023
Show notes
Social media platforms have emerged as the new “town square” and a key forum for public debate, but some have questioned whether that debate is as open and robust as it should be. On the other hand, some worry that efforts to regulate social media platforms may themselves crimp debate. At the heart of the discussion is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A panel of experts discussed what Section 230 permits and doesn’t permit—a question now before a number of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google. Featuring: --Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Fellow, Free Speech & Peace, Stand Together --Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation --Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute --Moderator: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
