MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Education
  • Electoral Process
  • Employment & Contracting
  • Second Amendment
  • State Initiatives

The Hijab Case

Short video with Rachel Paulose discussing EEOC v. Abercrombie
Rachel K. Paulose February 26, 2015

Former US Attorney for Minnesota, Rachel Paulose, explains the issues in dispute before the Supreme Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie in which a 17-year-old Muslim applicant alleges employment discrimination when Abercrombie refused to hire her as a "model" because of her religious head-covering.  Abercrombie denies the allegation.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Executive Action on Immigration - Event Audio/Video

Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups
Kamal Essaheb, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Ilya Shapiro, Peter Bisbee February 20, 2015

On November 20, 2014, President Obama, with much attention from the media and the public, announced executive action on immigration. Our discussion will address the specifics of the President’s actions, and the legality of those actions. What exactly was said and done by the President, and how do his actions differ from acts he previously asserted were beyond his unilateral power? Has the President exceeded his constitutional authority to act? What happens next? Please join us over the lunch hour for a discussion with three experts in the field.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Kamal Essaheb, Immigration Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center
  • Mr. David Rivkin, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
  • Moderator: Mr. Peter Bisbee, Membership Director and Associate Director of External Relations, The Federalist Society

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Animal Personhood: A Debate - Event Audio/Video

Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups
Richard L. Cupp, Steven M. Wise, A. Raymond Randolph February 19, 2015

The Federalist Society does not authorize the use or transcription of these recordings, in part or in whole, by any person or organization for any use other than for the private viewing of the recorded event.

Some animal rights activists have maintained for years that animals deserve many of the same basic legal rights that humans have. Though “animal personhood” might be perceived as a niche issue, the legal status of animals such as apes, dolphins, elephants and whales reaches far beyond the realm of animal rights—to the food, pharmaceutical, tourism and entertainment industries and more. Recently, animal rights supporters have begun turning to the legal system for help. In late 2013, the animal rights organization Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits in New York State to establish the “legal personhood” of four chimpanzees and relocate them to outdoor sanctuaries. While intermediate appellate courts have rejected the Nonhuman Rights Project’s argument, the group has publicly stated its intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court.

These lawsuits were the first in the United States to seek limited personhood rights for animals with advanced cognitive abilities. At the core of the lawsuits are fundamental questions about the legal status of animals. Is the concept of animal rights more about the restriction of human activity, or about truly granting rights to animals? Do current animal welfare laws provide sufficient protections to animals? Should animals have the ability to challenge their own detention, though the writ of habeas corpus?

Featuring:

  • Prof. Richard L. Cupp, John W. Wade Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Mr. Steven M. Wise, President, Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc.
  • Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Animal Personhood: A Debate

Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups
Richard L. Cupp, Steven M. Wise, A. Raymond Randolph February 11, 2015

Some animal rights activists have maintained for years that animals deserve many of the same basic legal rights that humans have. Though “animal personhood” might be perceived as a niche issue, the legal status of animals such as apes, dolphins, elephants and whales reaches far beyond the realm of animal rights—to the food, pharmaceutical, tourism and entertainment industries and more. Recently, animal rights supporters have begun turning to the legal system for help. In late 2013, the animal rights organization Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits in New York State to establish the “legal personhood” of four chimpanzees and relocate them to outdoor sanctuaries. While intermediate appellate courts have rejected the Nonhuman Rights Project’s argument, the group has publicly stated its intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court.

These lawsuits were the first in the United States to seek limited personhood rights for animals with advanced cognitive abilities. At the core of the lawsuits are fundamental questions about the legal status of animals. Is the concept of animal rights more about the restriction of human activity, or about truly granting rights to animals? Do current animal welfare laws provide sufficient protections to animals? Should animals have the ability to challenge their own detention, though the writ of habeas corpus?

Featuring:

  • Prof. Richard L. Cupp, John W. Wade Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Steven M. Wise, President, Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc.
  • Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Former United States Attorney General Meese on Voter ID Laws - Podcast

Civil Rights and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Groups Podcast
Edwin Meese III January 30, 2015

Numerous states have passed voter identification laws, and the Supreme Court has permitted them to remain in effect. Nonetheless, voter ID remains a highly controversial issue. Former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III discussed voter fraud and the importance of voter ID laws and answered audience questions on a live Teleforum conference call.

  • Hon. Edwin Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus, The Heritage Foundation

Former United States Attorney General Meese on Voter ID Laws

Civil Rights and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Teleforum
Edwin Meese III January 29, 2015

Numerous states have passed voter identification laws, and the Supreme Court has permitted them to remain in effect. Nonetheless, voter ID remains a highly controversial issue. Former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III will discuss voter fraud and the importance of voter ID laws and answer audience questions on a live Teleforum conference call.

  • Hon. Edwin Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus, The Heritage Foundation

Disparate Impact Liability and the Fair Housing Act: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Todd F. Gaziano January 22, 2015

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc. The Supreme Court has previously attempted twice to hear cases reaching the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, in Magner v. Gallagher and Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, and in both instances the cases were settled less than a month before oral arguments. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to “refuse to sell or rent . . . or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.” Do policies that can be demonstrated to have a discriminatory effect on certain racial groups, without a showing of discriminatory intent, violate the statute?

  • Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation

Disparate Impact Liability and the Fair Housing Act: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc.

Civil Rights Practice Group Courthouse Steps Teleforum
Todd F. Gaziano January 21, 2015

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc. The Supreme Court has previously attempted twice to hear cases reaching the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, in Magner v. Gallagher and Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, and in both instances the cases were settled less than a month before oral arguments. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to “refuse to sell or rent . . . or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.” Do policies that can be demonstrated to have a discriminatory effect on certain racial groups, without a showing of discriminatory intent, violate the statute?

  • Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation

Coming Soon to a School Near You?: Common Core - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Jimmy R. Faircloth, D. John Sauer January 12, 2015

The Common Core State Standards attempts to define what K-12 students should know at the end of each school year in key subject areas. The initiative garnered strong and broad support, but has come under increasingly heavy criticism from state and local officials, and parents. Supporters argue that uniform standards are an essential part of assuring quality education throughout the nation. Criticisms range from concerns about top-down, federal control of a traditionally state and local government function, to attempts to impose a nationwide curriculum, to a lack of field testing of the standards. Our experts discussed the standards and who has the better argument.

  • Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Managing Partner, Faircloth, Melton & Keiser, LLC
  • D. John Sauer, Partner, Clark & Sauer, LLC