Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts

The IRS, and its purported targeting of conservative organizations in the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) status, has been much in the news recently. The still-developing story has involved countless news reports, threatened and now actual litigation, and repeat oversight hearings in Congress. Dean Emeritus John Eastman of Chapman Law School provides an update on the latest developments and the road ahead. -- Featuring: Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of Law -- Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Practice Groups Director, The Federalist Society

On May 20, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Arlington v. FCC. The Supreme Court ruled that courts should apply Chevron deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute concerning the scope of the agency's authority. Is the decision surprising? Has the Court removed an important check on otherwise unaccountable federal regulators? Will the decision result in more careful, specific drafting of statutes by Congress? These and other questions are discussed by our experts on this previously recorded conference call. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Moderator: Hon. Eileen O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Practice Groups Director, The Federalist Society

In his essay titled “Conservative Principles for Environmental Reform,” Professor Jonathan Adler provides a critique of the environmental regulatory architecture and traditional approaches to environmental policy put in place in the 1970’s, such as command-and-control. He notes that conservatives have failed to engage in the substance of environmental policy and have failed to come up with alternatives to the conventional environmental paradigm and its emphasis on regulatory intervention and the centralization of regulatory authority in the federal government. On this previously recorded conference call, Prof. Adler discusses these and other issues, including an alternative conservative approach to environmental policies. He is joined by Prof. Donald Kochan who will provide his comments and answer questions from callers. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Chapman University School of Law; and Moderator: Mr. Christian Corrigan, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society

On April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely. In an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream over time does not constitute an exigency under the Fourth Amendment to sufficiently justify a non-consensual, warrantless blood test in a drunk driving case. Other members of the Court split in interesting ways. Our expert will provide an analysis of the case and provide his thoughts on the decision’s potential implications. -- Featuring: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation and Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Practice Groups Director, The Federalist Society

A little-known labor law, enacted more than half a century ago, may soon be reinterpreted by the Obama Administration in an attempt to bolster union organizing. The statute requires consultants known as “persuaders” to disclose to the government their clients, services provided, and legal fees. For more than 50 years, lawyers who advised clients about employee communications, but did not communicate directly with employees, were not persuaders. But now, under a new interpretation of “advice,” lawyers will be persuaders if they “draft, revise or provide” employee communications with a persuasive objective. And the scope of required disclosure will be vastly expanded to encompass all “protected concerted activity.” A law firm will be required to make full disclosure to the federal government on every one of its labor and employment law clients, even if they do not receive persuader services. If a firm fails to comply, its top officers will face severe criminal penalties — a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. -- Featuring: Mr. Harold P. (Hal) Coxson, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC; Mr. Michael J. Lotito, Co-Chairman, Workplace Policy Institute and Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC; and Moderator: Mr. William J. Emanuel, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C. Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Practice Groups Director, The Federalist Society

On May 13, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bowman v. Monsanto, an extremely important case about the scope of patent rights in both promoting new biotech research and ensuring that the fruits of these labors are secured to the firms that sell and license this new technology. In her opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Kagan stated that Monsanto's patent rights in genetically engineered soybean seeds were not "exhausted" by the first sale of these seeds to a farmer. In this case, Bowman replanted follow-on generations of seeds naturally produced by the plants that grew from first-generation seeds first purchased from Monsanto. Monsanto expressly restricted this type of "re-use" of the genetically engineered seeds, because it maintained that it could not recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D investments required to create this technology without such restrictions. The Court agreed, and while it seemed to establish a clear rule that will spur the ongoing creation and distribution of genetically engineered inventions in the green and biotech revolutions, there remain important questions about the scope of licensing rights in patented technology generally and the scope of patent protection over forms of life. This panel of experts will discuss the Bowman decision, its role in the ongoing policy debates over patented innovation, and the implications it has for future innovation. -- Featuring: Prof. Jorge Contreras, American University Washington College of Law; Prof. Gregory Dolin, University of Baltimore School of Law; Mr. Hans Sauer, Deputy General Counsel, Biotechnology Industry Organization; and Moderator: Prof. Sean O'Connor, University of Washington School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Practice Groups Director, The Federalist Society

Today, people read daily complaints about the “broken” patent system, and thus, it's unsurprising that there are numerous and wide-ranging attempts to "reform" the patent system. Legislative reform efforts include the proposed SHIELD Act, which would impose a losing-plaintiff-pays litigation system solely on patent-licensing companies and further revisions to the America Invents Act of 2011. Regulatory agencies also have skin in the patent reform game: the FTC recently reached settlements with Bosch and Google that restricted their rights to enforce their patents in standardized technology, and the FTC is currently considering whether to condemn the patent-licensing business model as “anti-competitive.” The courts are heavily involved as well: in addition to the many patent cases it has decided in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has four major patent cases on its docket this year, which suggests that it also agrees that the patent system is in serious need of legal reform. Yet, patents today secure innovation once imagined only as science fiction – tablet computers, smart phones, genetically modified seeds, genetic testing for cancer, personalized medical treatments for debilitating diseases, and many others – and these technological marvels are now a commonplace feature of our lives. This Teleforum with the Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – a digital “fireside chat” – explored these and other issues in assessing whether the patent system is broken or whether it is fundamentally sound. -- Featuring: Hon. Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit and Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Co-Director, Academic Programs and Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason Law School. Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Practice Groups Director, The Federalist Society

With the recent passing of Judge Robert Bork, the Federalist Society hosted a very special Teleforum conference call featuring Federalist Society founder and Board Chairman Steven Calabresi and Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, celebrating Judge Bork's life and legacy, and discussing his final, just-published book, Saving Justice: Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, and Other Adventures of a Solicitor General. Please click through to listen to this fascinating discussion. -- Featuring: Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Northwestern University School of Law and Federalist Society founder and Board Chairman; Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; and Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Practice Groups Director, The Federalist Society

In the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, there has been a concerted effort advocating more disclosure by corporations about their political and government relations spending. Federal legislation on this subject has failed to advance in the last two sessions of Congress, but lawsuits and regulations are pending. In addition, with corporate shareholder meeting season in full swing, there are a number of shareholder proposals seeking more disclosure of such spending. What is the source of this push for disclosure? What is its goal? How have entities targeted with disclosure complaints or shareholder resolutions reacted? -- This teleforum featured Wesley Bizzell, Assistant General Counsel, Altria Client Services, Inc., and Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel Josefiak, PLLC, with Douglas Chalmers, Jr., Managing Member of the Political Law Group serving as moderator. Messrs. Torchinsky and Chalmers regularly represent corporations, PACs, nonprofit organizations, and trade associations in disclosure issues. Mr. Bizzell oversees Altria’s political law compliance program, including its disclosures related to its government affairs activities. -- Featuring: Mr. Wesley Bizzell, Assistant General Counsel, Government Affairs, Altria Client Services Inc.; Mr. Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC; and Moderator: Mr. Douglas Chalmers Jr., Managing Member, Political Law Group. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

In recent months and years, gender issues have taken an increasingly important role in discussions of law, policy, and electoral politics, garnering a great deal of media attention and public discussion. What are the true implications of the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Corporation case and the government’s ensuing actions? Have they been used, perhaps opportunistically or disingenuously, by either side in this debate? Have gender issues in general been misused in the same way? Is there a War on Women, or is this a canard designed to excite and mislead??? -- Featuring: Ms. Jennifer Braceras, Columnist and former Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil Rights; Ms. Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment, National Women’s Law Center; and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Cyber threats were the first identified Global Threat in the U.S. Intelligence Community Worldwide Threat Assessment issued in March 2013. Many cybersecurity proposals feature information sharing and enhanced regulation of critical infrastructure industries as the best measures to prevent and mitigate cyber attacks. Can information sharing improve security while protecting privacy? Can regulatory measures help, without imposing excessive burdens on business? -- Featuring: Mr. Gus P. Coldebella, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP and former Acting General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union; and Prof. Nathan A. Sales, George Mason University School of Law and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development, Department of Homeland Security. Comments and Questions by Mr. John Reed, Staff Writer, National Security, Foreign Policy Magazine. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

After his election as Venezuela’s President in 1999, the late Hugo Chávez oversaw a gradual, but unmistakable, consolidation of power. At the time of his death, Mr. Chávez controlled nearly all important institutions in Venezuela. Although the Chávez regime was unchallenged in its exercise of power – using this power to arrest and detain opponents, silence opposition media, and illegally expropriate billions in private property – it did so under the guise of respect for the rule of law. This amounted to little more than form over substance. After Mr. Chávez’s death, and with the election of President Nicolás Maduro on April 14, 2013, what are the prospects for a return to democracy and genuine rule of law in Venezuela?? -- Featuring: Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Founder and Managing Director, VisiónAméricas and Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States; and former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On March 20, 2013, the Supreme Court heard argument in the third takings case of the term, Horne et al v. Department of Agriculture, a case in which the government assessed a $700,000 fine against a California raisin farmer who refused to give the government 30 to 48 percent of his raisin crop as required by the Agriculture Department’s marketing order. Mr. Horne claimed that the government’s requirement and the fine were both unconstitutional takings, and that he could assert this defense in the administrative fine hearing. But the Ninth Circuit held that Mr. Horne lacked standing to challenge the fine on Fifth Amendment grounds, and that Mr. Horne must first pay the fine and then sue for just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. -- Although many thought the argument would be a showdown on obscure procedural issues involving Agriculture Department administrative law — the grounds on which the Ninth Circuit had dismissed Mr. Horne’s claim — the Solicitor General shocked the Court by announcing that the case should, in fact, be remanded for determination of the merits. The government continued to argue, however, that those merits did not include the Fifth Amendment — that Mr. Horne must first pay the fine and then file his takings claim in the Court of Federal Claims. -- The lively argument leapt from the constitutionality of agricultural marketing orders to whether a monetary fine could be a taking to who actually owned the raisins of which the government took possession without compensation. The decision in the case will likely have significant ramifications for takings law, as well as challenges to the constitutionality of federal fines for regulatory non-compliance.? -- Featuring: Hon. Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla & Marzulla and Moderator: Mr. David C.F. Ray, Associate Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The immigration reform debate is a major discussion topic in Congress this year. The Senate has already outlined a bipartisan compromise to deal with border security, visas, and citizenship for the estimated 11 million currently residing in the U.S. While a larger debate on comprehensive reform is unfolding, there are smaller steps under consideration, like H.R. 435, The Military Enlistment Opportunity Act of 2013. The experts on this previously recorded conference call discuss what this legislation seeks to accomplish and whether it will be a positive step forward in the ongoing immigration debate.? -- Featuring: Mr. Evan Armstrong, General Counsel and Legislative Assistant to Representative Mike Coffman; Prof. Margaret D. Stock, Counsel, Lane Powell PC and Adjunct Instructor, University of Alaska, Anchorage; and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

How can copyright owners enforce their rights in a challenging online and digital environment? Widespread copyright infringement remains an enduring problem, but the challenges and the solutions constantly evolve. -- Copyright owners face big challenges. One problem is the contention that social norms regarding copyright have changed – that an entire generation has grown up accustomed to infringement. Another is the issue of rogue sites – offshore websites that contain massive amounts of U.S. content. Yet another problem is the fact that some of the world's most respected brands are supplying vast amounts of advertising dollars to sites that supply both infringing content and even more illicit materials. -- Copyright owners also are trying innovative solutions. New private-ordering solutions, such as cooperation with internet service providers, appear promising. Creators are persuading advertisers that advertising with pirates is bad business. New business models offer great hope. Even social norms can change. -- The participants on this Teleforum consider these new challenges, promising new approaches, and what the best business and policy responses might be to them.? -- Featuring: Prof. Bruce E. Boyden, Assistant Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School; Prof. Mark Schultz, Co-Director of Academic Programs, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law and Associate Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law; Mr. Steve Tepp, Sentinel Worldwide; and Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Co-Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law; Introduction by Mr. Christian Corrigan, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society