In January 2024, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) initiated an “emergency collection” of information about the electricity consumption of leading cryptocurrency mining companies operating in the United States. EIA’s Administrator declared the agency’s intent to analyze and report on the energy implications of cryptocurrency mining activities in the United States. This followed reports by leading environmental groups that have claim that, as an extremely energy-intensive process, cryptocurrency mining threatens the ability of governments across the globe to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, declaring, “If we do not take action to limit this growing industry now, we will not meet the goals set forth by the Paris Agreement and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius.”

In response to the EIA’s action, several leaders of the crypto community filed suit, swiftly securing a preliminary injunction of EIA’s “emergency” action. This panel will discuss the litigation to date, the growth of crypto, Bitcoin mining, and the impact its data centers may be having on electric demand and the environment. What might EIA have planned in the future? What are states already doing? And are there implications for the burgeoning datacenter demands anticipated by the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
Featuring:

Should private attorneys general enforce laws? Proponents argue that this approach allows individuals and private entities to act in the public interest, supplementing often overburdened or under-resourced government agencies. This can lead to more comprehensive enforcement of laws, particularly in areas such as environmental protection, consumer rights, and civil liberties, where violations might otherwise go unchecked. On the other hand, critics contend that private enforcement of public laws unconstitutionally delegates enforcement power from executive officers to private citizens. Such laws eviscerate political accountability and undermine the rule of law, which leads to inconsistent application of laws and potentially frivolous or profit-driven lawsuits. Join us as we examine these perspectives.

Featuring:
Judd Stone II, Former Solicitor General, Texas
Andrew Davis, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Moderator: Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC

In 2017, New York passed a law requiring employers to cover abortions in their health insurance plans. New York initially planned to exempt religious employers with sincere religious objections but later changed the exemption to protect only religious entities whose purpose is to inculcate religious values and who primarily employ and serve coreligionists. This exempted non-objecting ministries while leaving many religious groups that do object unprotected. Several of these unprotected religious groups—including an order of Anglican nuns, Roman Catholic dioceses, and Baptist and Lutheran churches—sued New York, arguing that the law forced them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. The New York courts ruled against the religious groups and in 2021, represented by Jones Day and Becket, the groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the bad rulings from the New York state courts, and told the state courts to reconsider the case in light of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. But on May 21, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals found Fulton inapplicable and again upheld the abortion mandate. The religious groups’ cert petition is due on August 18, 2024.

Featuring:

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

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

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Idaho, arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts a state law that restricts abortion in all but limited circumstances. The district court sided with the Biden administration and issued a preliminary injunction on Idaho’s law. On June 27th, 2024, the Supreme Court (6-3) dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted instead of determining the statutory interpretation question. It vacated its earlier stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction against Idaho’s abortion law.
Join Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Center for Life & Regulatory Practice at Alliance Defending Freedom, for a breakdown of this decision and its implications on the legal issues surrounding abortion in the post-Roe era.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.
The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.
Featuring:

Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

The marked inflation of food pricing is apparent upon any trip to the grocery store. Can new regulations aimed at governing the relationship between farmers and the corporations to which they sell their livestock help bring food prices down while allowing farmers to earn more for their labor? The Biden Administration has issued four regulations that aim to (1) prohibit certain previously common contractual terms between farmers and the purchasers of their livestock, (2) allow farmers to use an antitrust statute to assert claims of racial and other types of discrimination, and (3) allow farmers in general to more easily sue meat processors with claims of unfair competition. Are these new regulations legally sound, and will they work to bring down food prices? Join Minnesota Congressman Brad Finstad, Farm Action’s Joe Maxwell, and the North American Meat Institute’s Mark Dopp in a panel moderated by Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden as they debate these questions.

Featuring:

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asked whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that sought to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment.

Congress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.
Featuring:

Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of Law

In November 2022, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, against the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of the Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) and others.
The suit challenged the FDA’s 2000 decision to legalize mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs often used in conjunction as chemical abortifacients, and regulation of the drugs thereafter. The case rose through the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in favor of AHM. The Supreme Court granted cert, heard Oral Argument on March 26, 2024, and on June 13, 2024, issued a 9-0 decision holding the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

In 1992, Danny Lee Jones was convicted of two first-degree murder charges and one attempted premeditated murder charge by a trial court in Arizona and was sentenced to death. Mr. Jones appealed, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld his sentence. Later, Mr. Jones sought post-conviction review on multiple grounds, including a federal habeas petition. The District Court deemed the new evidence to be insignificant, but the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision.
The Supreme Court heard argument in Thornell v. Jones on April 17, 2024, and issued a decision on May 30, 2024, overturning the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the grounds that it incorrectly interpreted and applied the relevant precedent of Strickland v. Washington.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze this decision and what its ramifications may be.
Featuring:

Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA), which allows Native tribes to administer their healthcare programs instead of the Indian Health Service (IHS), also requires IHS to pay “contract support costs” (CSCs) to tribes to offset overhead costs incurred by the tribes while administering their healthcare programs. Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (consolidated with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe) asks whether the IHS must pay CSCs not only to support IHS-funded activities but also to support tribes’ expenditure of income collected directly from third-party insurers.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe, exercising its sovereignty in Arizona, managed its healthcare programs and billed outside insurers directly. However, the Tribe encountered difficulties funding the additional healthcare services from third-party revenue because IHS would not pay CSCs for these transactions. The Tribe sued the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, IHS, and the United States for the CSC for the years 2011–2013. The district court dismissed the Tribe’s claim for the third-party-revenue-funded portions of the Tribe’s healthcare program from CSC reimbursement, and the Tribe appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the statutory text of 25 U.S.C. § 5325(a) warranted a reversal of the dismissal and remanded further proceedings.
The Court heard oral arguments on March 25, 2024, and ruled in the case on June 6, 2024, affirming the Ninth Circuit’s holding in a 5-4 decision.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:

Jennifer H. Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

The Biden Administration recently proposed new regulatory guidelines that would permit agencies to impose price controls on products based on inventions derived from upstream federally funded research. The new regulations would affect such price controls by expanding the “march-in” power of the Bayh-Dole Act.

In addition to its core function allowing universities and other contractors to retain ownership of inventions created with federal funds, this law authorizes, under very specific circumstances, the funding agency (e.g., the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Department of Energy) to grant licenses, without authorization of the patent owner, to any inventions made with funding provided by the agency. The proposed new guidelines would add the price of the end-product derived from those early-stage inventions to the list of specific circumstances.

For several weeks, much media attention has focused on reports of flags flown outside the primary residence and vacation home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Several publications assert that the flags are associated with support for the “Stop the Steal” movement, Christian nationalism, and/or the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

These reports have led some reporters and lawmakers to question the impartiality of Justice Alito in cases involving former President Trump, and/or January 6 defendants. Justice Alito has issued statements directly addressing these reports and has not recused himself from any cases. On this topic, the Chief Justice declined a request for a meeting from two Democratic U.S. Senators, stating, in part, that “the format proposed – a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court – simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable.”