During the month of July, the Federalist Society will be celebrating Liberty Month. Our campaign is dedicated to public education and media awareness of the many pressing legal issues that affect the freedom of Americans. The Liberty Month program will include a daily spadea (half-page) insert in the Washington Times. Each insert will feature articles that discuss a specific court case or legal principle. To help kick-off liberty month, we welcomed Senator Mike Lee, who spoke about American Exceptionalism.
On June 25, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision that the Wall Street Journal has characterized as a "Disastrous Misreading of the Fair Housing Act," ruling that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The consensus of court-watchers predicted an opposite holding. Is the Court’s decision a broad endorsement of the government’s use of disparate impact theory? Our experts discussed the implications of the decision.
William Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
Ralph W. Kasarda, Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
On June 29, with a contentious 5-4 decision in which numerous dissents and concurrences were read from the bench, the Supreme Court upheld the state of Oklahoma’s lethal injection procedure. Our expert discussed the opinion and its impact going forward.
Kent S. Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the EPA. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can regulate, as a stationary source of emissions, power plants only if EPA concludes that "regulation is appropriate and necessary." The Court, in a split decision, held that the EPA acted unreasonably when it deemed cost of the regulations irrelevant when it decided to regulate power plants. But what does that mean for the EPA? Will the decision have an impact for other regulatory agencies?
Andrew Grossman, Associate, Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today resolved the gay marriage case, ruling that the “Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.” Our experts discussed the case and the decision.
Prof. John C. Eastman, Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute