FedSoc Forums The Federalist Society

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of Labor and Administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The employees received disciplinary action and ultimately lost their jobs in the wake of their involvement in a unionization effort. In the following investigation, the NLRB found that there was reasonable cause to believe Starbucks had acted in retaliation against protected unionization efforts. A district court issued a temporary injunction and required the 7 former employees to be reinstated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal, concluding the NLRB had satisfied its burden in showing there was "reasonable cause" that Starbucks had violated the National Labor Relations Act and thus the NLRB could use its remedial power. Starbucks appealed again and the case was heard by the Supreme Court on April 23, 2023.
The question before the Supreme Court, however, is not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the NLRA, but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the NLRB needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use?
Join us as we break down and analyze this interesting case and the Oral Argument in the days following the argument before the Court.
Featuring:

Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On March 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas entered a declaratory judgment and nationwide injunction against the Minority Business Development Agency, preventing the agency from extending a federally-sponsored racial preference to groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. This case, Nuziard v. MBDA, expands upon last summer's Supreme Court ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions. Daniel Lennington of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, who litigated the case, discussed the case and its impact on the future of equality.

In 2002, under Chairman Michael Powell, the FCC passed the Cable Modem Order which classified cable modem internet service providers (ISPs) as not subject to common carrier non-discrimination requirements. The order’s critics said the FCC had created a non-neutral internet where dominant firms could use their market power to harm consumers and diminish competition. After several attempts, which the D.C. Circuit rejected, the FCC under Chairman Wheeler imposed network neutrality requirements on ISPs in the Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet order in 2015. Then, the FCC under Chairman Pai largely revoked the network neutrality rules in the Restoring Internet Freedom order in 2017. Now, under Chair Rosenworcel the FCC has just reimposed network neutrality.

This panel discussed the legal future on appeal of this most recent iteration in what appears to be an unending partisan regulatory saga—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s changing views on administrative review. The panel also investigated whether this over two decade old policy dispute is fighting yesterday’s war as many believe that there have been few competitive abuses by ISPs during the last two decades—and arguably competitive abuses by dominant firms has moved elsewhere in the web.

In the consolidated Students for Fair Admissions cases, the Supreme Court held unlawful the use of race in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Many colleges and universities have nonetheless indicated that they plan to circumvent the decision by using proxies for race instead. A 1978 Supreme Court case, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing, held that using proxies for race to discriminate is generally as unlawful as using race itself. Arlington Heights also sets forth a test for identifying when a challenged policy is prohibited proxy discrimination. But the lower courts have applied Arlington Heights in different ways to challenged admissions policies, with some lower courts engaging in tough scrutiny of challenged policies and with others being much more deferential to assertions of benign intent.

This panel addressed: is proxy discrimination unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment? If yes, what is the right legal test -- Arlington Heights or something else? What challenged policies, if any, are prohibited proxy discrimination?

In 2021, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, private litigants sued to challenge the Arkansas state House redistricting map as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting the vote of racial minorities. In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not grant a private right of action. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court holding, and in 2024, the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing of the case en banc. In this panel, three voting rights practitioners will provide their analysis of the Voting Rights Act, the Eighth Circuit's decision, and the implications of this decision on redistricting and voting rights cases.
Featuring:

J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation
Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General, The State of Arkansas
Jeffrey Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School & Senior Fellow, New York Census and Redistricting Institute
(Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney

John Ream, an engineer and owner of Trek Brewing Company which creates craft beers in Newark, Ohio, is suing the U.S. Department of Treasury over the regulations that prohibit distilling spirits and hard alcohols at home. Mr. Ream asserts that he would like to pursue the hobby of distilling spirits at home for his personal use but cannot because of federal legislation. The federal law, passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, makes it a felony punishable by $10,000 in fines and five years in prison, to distill hard alcohol, even for personal use. Mr. Ream, represented by The Buckeye Institute, alleges that this prohibition is unconstitutional and exceeds the powers granted Congress by the Commerce Clause, since it seeks to regulate non-commercial activity.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, early in 2024, and is currently making its way through the litigation process.
Join us for a litigation update on Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury featuring Robert Alt, lead attorney at The Buckeye Institute representing Mr. Ream.
Featuring:

Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute
(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP