Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts

The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and the Chinese government have denounced the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague’s recent ruling. According to The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provisions, island-building activity and territorial claims in the South China Sea violated international and environmental law. Was China bound by this ruling, although China objects to The Hague Arbitration Court’s jurisdiction, and claims that consent was not given? When international law, agreements, and norms are summarily voided by a losing nation, what should be the international legal and political response? Regarding international agreements specifically, does this case provide warnings for signatories to treaties and agreements? Are there lessons for the United States in the consideration of potential reservations, opt-outs, alternate venues, or waivers, and whether they were given proper regard by the Court? -- Featuring: Prof. James Kraska, Howard S. Levie Professor in the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and Prof. Julian Ku, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law and Faculty Director of International Programs, Hofstra University School of Law.

A “requester pays” amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) would require that those seeking discovery pay for its costs, moving federal civil litigation away from the current “American rule” that requires all parties to bear their own litigation expenses, including the costs of responding to discovery requests. Supporters of “requester pays” argue that discovery requests can be so broad and costs can be so high that they become a disincentive to defend. Opponents claim that the amendment would make legal proceedings even more expensive for individual litigants, who would be unable to pay for the discovery necessary to make a case against larger and more powerful defendants. Here to discuss this idea are Alex Dahl of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP and Professor Benjamin Spencer of UVA School of Law. -- Featuring: Alexander R. Dahl, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and Prof. A. Benjamin Spencer, Earle K. Shawe Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

Everyone is interested in free, fair and open elections. For decades, the country has debated the proper balance between First Amendment speech rights and campaign finance and disclosure laws. In a new book, The Intimidation Game, Kimberley Strassel seeks to show, through first-hand accounts, how this tension can and has been used against free speech and free association, chilling or even silencing political opposition. -- Featuring: Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member, Author of The Intimidation Game.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. The case focuses on religious liberties and the Establishment Clause, and whether the First Amendment allows states to disfavor religious institutions. The Missouri Constitution has a clause against the use of public funds for religious entities, reading “that no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion…” In this case, The Department of Natural Resources turned down a request by a church-run preschool for a grant for new rubber ground in their playground. Does the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violate the constitution? Our experts join us today to discuss the upcoming case and to give some background on the relevant precedent in this area of law. -- Featuring: Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Saint Thomas School of Law; Prof. Martin S. Lederman, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center and Prof. Christopher C. Lund, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University.

The America Invents Act (AIA) significantly affects the Constitutional separation of powers by creating a new inter partes review (IPR) regime for challenging an issued patent under an Article II Executive Branch entity, the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB). In practice, the PTAB has become an alternative forum for accused infringers to attack patent claims with less risk and expense than in U.S. federal district courts. Combined with the reluctance and sometime refusal of Article III courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) to exert authority over final application of patent law, the statutory adjudicative powers given PTAB judges give rise to separation of powers issues. -- As a result, patents that have successfully overcome validity challenges in a “final judgment” of a court are now subjected to double jeopardy in the PTAB, and those valuable but limited patent property rights can be challenged and taken away entirely within an Article II administrative forum. At least two cases pending cert before the U.S. Supreme Court challenge provisions of the AIA on separation of power bases (Cooper v. Lee and MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.), while another (Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee) challenging the differences between the PTAB’s and the courts’ claim construction regimes has already been decided. In Cuozzo, the Court upheld the PTAB/USPTO’s application of a different claim construction standard from the courts, tipping the scales against patentees who face a validity challenge during IPRs as compared against in federal district court. Critics of the AIA rules –and particularly IPRs– as applied by the USPTO/PTAB assert that they weaken patents and the patent system, and undermine the incentives for innovation that have driven economic growth for much of this country’s history. This teleforum will include a discussion of the Constitutional challenges to the AIA’s patent review provisions, including the Court’s hints in Cuozzo that it is aware of other Constitutional issues. -- Featuring: Mr. Rob Greenspoon, Founding Member, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs, Senior Scholar,Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Partner, Goldstein & Russell. Moderator: Mr. Trevor K. Copeland, Shareholder, Brinks Gilson and Lione.

There have been a series of recent court decisions at both the federal district court and court of appeals level involving election reforms in North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. These cases involve state statutes on voter ID, early voting, same day registration, and out-of-precinct voting. Hans von Spakovsky, Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation, a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commissioner, and the former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Justice Department will discuss these developments and the status of the litigation and the law governing elections and voting. -- Featuring: Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

The case of In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation stems from Microsoft's refusal to comply with a search warrant, which would have required Microsoft to hand over the contents of e-mails stored on a server in Ireland, but accessible from the company's U.S. headquarters. The U.S. government had applied for the warrant under Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Reversing a lower court decision in favor of the government, the Second Circuit ruled that ECPA warrants did not have extraterritorial effect without express Congressional authorization. -- Were the Second Circuit and Microsoft correct? Or was the government, which had contended that the data would be seized in the U.S rather than where it was stored, and therefore the warrant would not be exercised extraterritorially? Is the case a win for the protection of privacy? Will it help protect the relationships and agreements of U.S. entities with foreign nations? Will it be a huge burden to force the government to use the mutual legal assistance process when a provider opts to store the data at issue outside the U.S.? -- Featuring: Jeffrey M. Harris, Partner, Bancroft PLLC and Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, George Mason University School of Law and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Climate change activists have for the past year been urging the Department of Justice and state attorneys general to investigate ExxonMobil, think tanks, and other corporations and organizations that have expressed skepticism or otherwise presented contrary views either on the science or the policy of climate change regulatory action. These calls include members of Congress petitioning the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether Exxon and its “brain trust” violated civil RICO, an ongoing Martin Act investigation launched last fall by the New York Attorney General, and more recently, subpoenas issued by the US Virgin Islands and civil investigative demands from the Massachusetts AG. A press conference on March 29, 2016 attended by former vice-president Al Gore, represented that these calls for investigations are supported by a coalition of 20 attorneys general. The next day a majority of state attorneys general, 29 in all, issued a press release that they would not be joining in that call for investigations or other regulatory action, citing respect for the rule of law and the First Amendment. Asserting that good science embraces disagreement and the chilling effect on research when the government decides what is “truth” and what is “fraud,” these majority states revealed a stark divide in our polity about the proper role of the executive branch – state and federal – in formulating, enforcing and financing climate change policy. -- At the March 29, 2016 press conference, former vice-President Gore asserted that “our democracy’s been hacked” and that these state and federal enforcement actions were necessary to remedy Congress’s and other legislative inactivity. In this Teleforum, Andrew Grossman – who has been involved in both defending targets of the subpoenas and in challenging the lawfulness of their issuance – discussed some of the legal and policy questions implicated by this division between the states, and the executive branches and Congress, such as: Should a corporation’s published research that expresses concerns about climate change be grounds for civil RICO or other regulatory action? Would such potential liability disincentive research? Should the government decide what is truth and what is not in the historically uncertain arena of science? Should those matters be decided in legislative hearings with the opportunity for the expression of multiple views on the science, policy, and proposed solutions? Should there have to be a substantiated allegation of unlawful conduct before such investigatory powers are wielded? Who has been defrauded? Is there harm in forcing corporations and think tanks to open up their records, research and communications – isn’t that a good way to determine whether there has been fraud on the energy markets? On the other hand, has Exxon sold oil or raised capital by claiming climate change is not affected by fossil fuels? Are consumers/investors uncritical consumers of industry information? What are the pros and cons of legislative action, inaction or accretional action versus sweeping state and federal executive enforcement actions? What regulatory authority or past practice provides a template for these investigations, and what are their practical and historical goals and outcomes? Do think tanks have a different status vis-a-vis the First Amendment than a for profit business selling fossil fuels, and if so what role, if any, does the source of their funding play? -- Featuring: Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute and Margaret A. (Peggy) Little, Partner, Little and Little, & Director, The Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center.

In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote rule allows States to draw their legislative districts based on total population. In doing so, the Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the one-person, one-vote rule protects eligible voters and thus required States to equalize the population of eligible voters, not total population. The Court explicitly declined to resolve whether States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population. -- Our experts analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision and reviewed the constitutional history underlying the one-person, one-vote doctrine. They discussed the impact of Evenwel on future redistricting decisions, including the Court’s willingness to accept legislative districts based on eligible voters. -- Featuring: J. Michael Connolly, Counsel, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC and Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), passed in 1925, generally requires courts to look favorably upon all arbitration agreements. In 2011, the Supreme Court upheld an arbitration agreement in a contract for mobile phone services that contained a class action ban. The court ruled that a state law that prevented the class action ban from being enforced was “an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives.” -- However, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, which authorizes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to study arbitration agreements in consumer contracts and limit or prohibit them if doing so would be in the public interest and for the protection of consumers. In May 2016, the CFPB issued a proposed rule that would ban arbitration agreements that acted to prevent class action lawsuits and would further establish certain reporting requirements for other arbitrations that are filed between consumers and providers. -- Our experts discussed this proposed rule, including the history that led us to this point and the potential impact it will have if it is finalized. -- Featuring: Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law and Thaddeus King, Officer, Consumer Banking,The Pew Charitable Trusts

Over 75 Americans die every day of an opioid overdose (both prescription drug opioids and heroin), a number that has quadrupled since 1999. Meanwhile, the amount of prescription drug opioids (oxycodone, hydrocodone and their ilk) sold in the United States has grown fourfold during the same period. -- Our experts explored the scope of this growing problem, and the proposed legislative solution, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act signed into law by President Obama on July 22, 2016. -- Featuring: Shane Dana, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Case Agent, Chasing the Dragon Project and Drew Hudson, Legislative Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Moderator: James Baehr, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Louisiana.

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.

Cisco and other industry leaders estimate that the Internet of Things (the “IoT”) has the potential to inject trillions of dollars of value over the next decade into both the public and private sectors. It holds tremendous promise to transform and improve our lives, generating unprecedented opportunities in the way we govern and are governed, the way we do business, and the way we manage our daily activities. We stand at the cusp of an era in which everything from cars to cows can be given an Internet address and connected to the IoT network. -- This rapid expansion of new technologies and capabilities brings new technical, legal, and policy challenges to the forefront. The IoT has undoubtedly caught the attention of federal policy makers, as demonstrated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (“NTIA”) recent request for comments. There are many potential touchpoints in the IoT ecosystem for regulators and policymakers, from addressing spectrum requirements to ensuring the security of systems to establishing data protection frameworks. Unfortunately, the risk of overregulating or promulgating inconsistent regulations runs high. -- Our experts discussed the current and future regulatory landscape of the IoT. Is the NTIA’s proceeding a harbinger for more regulation in this nascent space? What is the correct framework to ensure the successful deployment of the IoT? Is there any role for government? What policy decisions could make or break the evolution of the IoT? -- Featuring: Neil Chilson, Attorney-Advisor to Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, Federal Trade Commission; Jamie Susskind, Legislative Counsel, Senator Deb Fischer; and Eric Wenger, Director for Cybersecurity and Privacy Policy, Global Government Affairs, Cisco. Moderator: Kelly A. Donohue, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP.

Cell-site simulators are devices used by law enforcement. In response to the signals emitted by a cell-site simulator, cellular devices in the proximity identify the simulator as the most attractive cell tower in the area and transmit signals to the simulator that identify the device. Using these simulators, investigators can locate cellular devices whose unique identifiers are already known to law enforcement, or determine the unique identifiers of an unknown device by collecting limited signaling information from devices in the simulator user’s vicinity. -- It has been a subject of debate whether the use of cell-site simulators by the government requires a warrant supported by probable cause. In September 2015, the Justice Department released a policy requiring federal investigators to obtain a warrant prior to employing a simulator, except under exceptional circumstances. -- Is there a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in the data collected by cell-site simulators? Who is in the best position to establish limits in this area (if any), Congress or the courts? Should investigators be permitted to use simulators, even with a warrant? -- Featuring: Howard W. Cox, Adjunct Professor, George Washington University and Prof. Brian L. Owsley, Assistant Professor of Law, UNT Dallas College of Law.

On June 10, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, James Lankford, and Mike Lee introduced the Stop Settlements Slush Fund Act. The Act would prohibit the Department of Justice from enforcing settlements that allow parties to give money to outside parties chosen by the administration instead of the Treasury. Many of these outside parties have been non-profits that Congress had recently removed from federal funding. -- Featuring: Paul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation and Prof. David Min, Assistant Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law.