FedSoc Forums The Federalist Society

Garland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the (then standing) Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s authority.
The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024.
Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence.
Featuring:

Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Prof. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco
(Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

The legal status of cannabis has been a controversial issue ever since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) prohibited its distribution under federal law. That act classified cannabis as a Schedule I drug, a category for drugs that have no legitimate medical use and cannot be used safely even under medical supervision. Schedules II-V are for drugs that have a legitimate medical use and pose a decreasing risk of harm. Congress placed cannabis in Schedule I but authorized the attorney general, in consultation with the Secretary of (what is now) Health and Human Services, to reschedule it. Recently, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Biden Administration has decided to recategorize cannabis and place it into Schedule III. That announcement raises numerous legal, policy, and political issues. Our panelists—Harvard Medical School Professor Bertha Madras and Ohio State Law School Professor Douglas Berman—will discuss them.
Featuring:

Prof. Douglas Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
Dr. Bertha K. Madras, Professor of Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
(Moderator) Paul James Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation

In October of 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards for air quality, some of which had to do with air pollution which is carried across state borders, from “upwind” states to “downwind” states. The EPA required these states to submit plans of implementation but then rejected 21 of those plans as insufficient, instead publishing a federal plan which would enforce certain more stringent ozone pollution controls. This prompted several states and companies to challenge the rule and request a temporary block to its implementation, claiming the controls could lead to power grid emergencies. The EPA and its supporters claim, however, that a stay to the rule could critically affect public health and air quality. The Supreme Court did not speak to those issues, however, but instead stayed the rule after finding a likelihood of success on the claim that the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious.
Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.
Join Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, for a discussion of the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.
Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC

Join us for a webinar featuring Manhattan Institute fellow Tim Rosenberger, who will delve into the landmark case of Hile v. Michigan. On November 6th, 2023, the Sixth Circuit upheld Michigan's Blaine Amendment, which bars public financial support for parochial and other nonpublic schools, raising significant questions about religious discrimination and equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs filed a petition of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that these so-called "neutral" amendments often mask deep-seated biases, as evidenced by Michigan's historical animosity towards Catholic schools.
Learn about the broader implications for religious freedom, the precedent set by recent Supreme Court decisions, and the potential ripple effects across other states with similar provisions. Don’t miss this opportunity to understand the constitutional arguments and engage in a pivotal discussion on the future of educational rights and religious liberties in America.
Featuring:
Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute

Apprenticeship has been a significant focus of the Biden administration, and previously the Trump administration, with each taking markedly different approaches. The Trump Administration expanded apprenticeship through regulations making programs easier to establish through industry-recognized apprenticeship programs. The Biden administration rescinded these regulations and is now proceeding with its own proposed rule focused on registered apprenticeship programs.
In this webinar, a panel of experts will compare the two approaches. The panel will also provide insights on the pending apprenticeship rulemaking, including new potential regulatory requirements in the DEI area. The panel will also discuss the heavy reliance on a combination of regulatory and subregulatory guidance in the apprenticeship area, including in implementing green energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, and how this may be impacted by the recent Loper Bright and Relentless decisions ending Chevron deference.
Featuring:

Ryan Craig, Managing Director, Achieve Partners
Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
Hon. John Pallasch, Founder and CEO, One Workforce Solutions
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee
(Moderator) Craig Leen, Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

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 question before the Supreme Court, however, was not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the National Labor Relations Board (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?
The Court heard oral argument in the case on April 23, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued its decision, vacating the decision of the Sixth Circuit and remanding it for further proceedings. Justice Thomas wrote the decision for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson wrote an opinion dissenting in part, concurring in part, and concurring in judgment.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association