FedSoc Forums The Federalist Society

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
Snyder v. United States (April 15) - Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (April 15) - Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.Fischer v. United States (April 16) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.Thornell v. Jones. (April 17) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (April 22) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.Smith v. Spizzirri (April 22) - Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.Department of State v. Munoz (April 23) - (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (April 23) - Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions...

Over the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has grown, as wedding vendors have refused to serve same-sex weddings pursuant to their consciences. On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which held that the free speech clause prohibits a state from forcing a website designer to create messages with which the designer disagrees. That said, the Court has yet to issue a clear decision that resolves these issues under the free exercise clause, even though wedding vendors almost invariably object to providing services on religious grounds. Indeed, when the free exercise question was addressed in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court largely punted on the issue and resolved the case on very narrow procedural grounds.
Wedding-vendor litigation continues to percolate throughout the country and raises important questions for First Amendment jurisprudence, including whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, whether the free exercise clause extends protection to wedding vendors in a similar way to the free speech clause, and whether the so-called “hybrid rights doctrine” is a viable theory for analyzing religious claims to exemptions. Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars and practitioners in this space.
Featuring:

Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of Law
Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel at Senate Judiciary Committee

In Gonzalez v. Trevino, Petitioner Sylvia Gonzalez is a 72 year-old city councilwoman from Castle Hills, Texas. Ms. Gonzalez believed that the city's mayor and city manager were ignoring her constituents and her own frustrations with the city. The mayor and other allies of the city manager in turn planned to unseat the councilwoman. The mayor and police chief next filed charges with a rarely-used law to have the councilwoman arrested, booked, and put in jail. Ms. Gonzalez maintains that she did nothing wrong.

After a day in jail, local media picked up the story and the local prosecutor dropped the charges. Petitioner is represented by the Institute for Justice and she filed a 2020 lawsuit against the city officials. The city filed a motion to dismiss claiming qualified immunity, which the district court denied. An appeal followed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the district court over a dissent from Judge Oldham. The Supreme Court granted certiorari this past fall.

On March 20, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Trevino. This was a discussion with Anya Bidwell, Attorney at the Institute for Justice, as she broke down the case and its developments after oral argument.

Professor Zack De Piero was an English professor at the Pennsylvania State University Abington campus before resigning and filing a lawsuit against the University in 2023 alleging that administrators and faculty members discriminated against him because of the color of his skin.

Professor De Piero claims the University's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives created a hostile work environment with a race-essentialism focus. Professor De Piero was required to attend professional development meetings to view videos such as “White Teachers Are a Problem”, and was directed to “assure that all students see that white supremacy manifests itself in language and in writing pedagogy.” He took the prescribed course of action and filed a bias report, to no avail.

Professor De Piero has now filed suit against Penn State in federal court, alleging violations of his civil rights under federal and Pennsylvania law. Penn State initially argued that De Piero's disparate treatment claim must be dismissed because he resigned from his job at Penn State, and, thus, did not suffer an adverse employment action. On January 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Penn State’s motion to dismiss the discrimination claim against it by Professor De Piero. The case has now entered the discovery phase.

This was a Litigation Update on De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University with Michael Allen, one of Professor De Piero's attorneys and Partner at Allen Harris Law, and moderator William Trachman, General Counsel at the Mountain States Legal Foundation.

In Pulsifer v. United States, the Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?". Key to that question was the meaning of the word "and" in the statute, as the Court was asked to consider whether text and context required "and" in this case be read to mean "or". Oral argument was heard on October 2, 2023, and judgment was rendered in favor of the government (affirming the 8th Circuit's decision) on March 15, 2024. The decision split the Court 6-3, with Justice Kagan authoring the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch authored a dissent, which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.In the wake of this decision, join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision Forum as we discuss its potential ramifications.
Featuring:

Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
Murthy v. Missouri (March 18) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the injunction of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana restricting federal officials’ and employees’ speech concerning content moderation on social media platforms.NRA v. Vullo (March 18) - Whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy.Diaz v. United States (March 19) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking — where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs — Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (March 19) - Bankruptcy law - This case addresses whether an insurer with responsibility for a bankruptcy claim qualifies as a "party in interest" able to object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. It touches on the rights and roles of insurance companies within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.Gonzalez v. Trevino (March 20) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (March 20) - Environmental Law - This dispute involves the apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande among the states and the role of the federal government in such agreements. It represents the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle over water rights and usage.Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (March 25) - Federal Indian Law, Medical Law - The question is whether Native American tribes that manage their own healthcare programs are entitled to receive funds from the Indian Health Service to cover costs associated with services that are covered by insurance. This case examines the intersection of tribal sovereignty, healthcare, and federal funding obligations.Harrow v. Department of Defense (March 25) - Ad Law - It questions whether the 60-day deadline for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional, impacting the rights of federal employees in the review process.a...