The Federalist Society


Subscribe in a reader

Executive Committee Contact Information


  • Class Actions
  • Federal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Litigation
  • Torts & Product Liability
  • Trial & Appellate

Upcoming Events

   Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

Recent Publications

   Residual Class Action Awards: Cy Pres - Podcast

gavel money

Cy pres (from the French cy pres comme —“as near as possible”) originated in the trust context, but has more recently been applied to class action litigation, as courts try to determine what to do with sometimes significant amounts of settlement funds remaining after all identified plaintiff awards have been made.  In recent decades, courts have agreed to award such remaining funds to third party recipients who, while not parties to the underlying suits, are deemed worthy by the court.  Sometimes, the courts have selected these third party recipients based on recommendations from the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.  What are the legal underpinnings for such awards to entities or people not party to the underlying case?  What are the policy considerations in making or prohibiting such awards?  These and other questions were discussed by our experts.


  • Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Vanderbilt University Law School
  • Mr. Theodore H. Frank, Founder and President, Center for Class Action Fairness and Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy

[Listen now!]

   The Contraceptive Mandate in the Supreme Court: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - Podcast

Health and Human Services

The contraceptive mandate case is being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court next week. Hobby Lobby Stores is an incorporated chain of arts and crafts supply stores. Its owners have no moral or other objection to the use of 16 of 20 contraceptives required by the contraceptive mandate, but cite their deeply held religious beliefs in objecting to providing or paying for four others they see as possibly life-threatening. Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allow Hobby Lobby to deny its employees the health coverage of those contraceptives? Our experts previewed the merits of the case on the eve of oral arguments.


  • Prof. Stephen M. Bainbridge, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
  • Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, University of Notre Dame Law School
  • Prof. Martin S. Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Prof. Nelson Tebbe, Brooklyn Law School

[Listen now!]

   Supreme Court To Rule on Fraud on the Market: Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund - Podcast

Supreme Court

On March 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, and our expert attended and then reported on the argument. Will the Court continue to recognize the fraud on the market theory? How much reliance is required on the part of the plaintiffs? Will the Court allow introduction of evidence that a defendant’s statements did not affect the price of its stock to rebut a presumption of reliance?


  • Jeffrey B. Wall, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

[Listen now!]

   Fraud on the Market? - Oral Argument Preview of Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund - Podcast

Supreme Court building

Shareholders of Halliburton filed a class action lawsuit arguing that Halliburton falsified its financial statements and misrepresented projected earnings, invoking a “fraud on the market” theory to demonstrate class reliance on Halliburton’s statements. The “fraud on the market” theory assumes that investors have relied on any material misstatements when they purchase a security. The federal district court certified the class and did not allow Halliburton to introduce evidence that the statements did not affect its stock prices. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Will the Supreme Court continue to recognize the fraud on the market theory? If so, will the Court allow introduction of evidence that a defendant’s statements did not affect the price of its stock to rebut the presumption of reliance?


  • Steven G. Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP, and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
  • Prof. Michael Klausner, Nancy and Charles Munger Professor of Business and Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

[Listen now!]

The Federalist Society