2 JUL 2024 · 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 Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University (Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

1 JUL 2024 · 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

1 JUL 2024 · United States v. Rahimi raised the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face. Zackey Rahimi was found in possession of a rifle and pistol while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, a protective order that specifically barred him from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (a federal statute that makes it illegal for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a firearm). Rahimi challenged that indictment, arguing the law is facially unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. Initially, both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and the Court heard oral argument in the case on November 7, 2023. On June 21, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications. Featuring: Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel

24 JUN 2024 · 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

19 JUN 2024 · In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided two cases in which it held that certain restrictions against registering certain kinds of marks violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam (2017), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing terms disparaging toward a person or institution. In Icanu v. Brunetti (2019), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing scandalous or immoral terms. The Supreme Court has now decided Vidal v. Elster, in which it adopted this question presented: “Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [Lanham Act section 2(c)] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” At issue was an application to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL on various clothing items. Lanham Act section 2(c) prohibits registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.” The Federal Circuit held that this proscription violates the Free Speech Clause as applied in this mark-registration application. This Courthouse Steps presentation will discuss the background leading to Vidal v. Elster, review the Court's decision, and discuss its implications for trademark law and free speech. Featuring: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP Moderator: John B. Farmer, Attorney, Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC

18 JUN 2024 · 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

12 JUN 2024 · 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. Since its enactment in 1980, the march-in power of the Bayh-Dole Act has never been used. When asked about using the price of the end product as one of the circumstances, the law’s namesake Senators, Birch Bayh and Bob Dole, stated the text of their law did not authorize price-based march-in. Importantly, the NIH has rejected numerous petitions over the past several decades to use the march-in power to lower the prices of patented drugs or medical devices. Proponents of the new regulatory guidelines, however, argue that the statute does authorize an agency to consider price as a march-in trigger and the Biden Administration argues that march-in is a key tool to lower drug prices. This panel discussed the regulatory proposal for price controls under the Bayh-Dole Act and other vehicles (e.g., the IRA and reasonable/reference pricing clauses in licenses or collaborative research agreements), whether they represent regulatory overreach by the Executive Branch, and whether it is wise policy to implement price controls on drugs and other products or services in the U.S. innovation economy.

11 JUN 2024 · 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." Is this latest media coverage and Congressional interest part of a growing trend to target certain members of the Court? Is the legitimacy of the Court itself being called into question? This program addresses the contentions made against Justice Alito and the broader implications for journalism, professional ethics, separation of powers, and future respect for the Supreme Court as an essential American institution. Featuring: Dan Mclaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online Allyson Newton Ho, Partner & Co-Chair, Constitutional and Apellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

11 JUN 2024 · On October 30, 2023, President Biden signed the most far-reaching presidential action in AI, Executive Order 14,110, Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The EO directs dozens of federal agencies to take over 100 discrete actions to implement it over eight distinct policy areas. The EO received significant attention and a broad range of responses from the regulated public and congressional policymakers. Moreover, the States have grown highly active in regulating AI. This panel will discuss the consequences of the EO on the federal executive branch, the federal legislative process, States, and the tech industry as well as independent federal agency AI regulatory action with an eye toward the opportunities and challenges to come. Featuring: Johnathan Smith, Vice President and Legal Director, MacArthur Justice Center Hon. Keith Sonderling, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute (Moderator) Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School

10 JUN 2024 · Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state courts and legislatures have grappled with its legal and policy implications, especially as they pertain to abortion and IVF. In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, for example, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos should be regarded as “children” for the purposes of Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. And in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 1864 law that bans all abortions in the state except those deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. These recent rulings have been highly criticized by commentators on both sides of the aisle, and they raise important questions about the legal status of IVF and abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For example, in both cases, the courts interpreted the law in accordance with textualist principles, and the state legislatures swiftly enacted measures to address the state supreme court decisions afterward. Are these cases therefore examples of the proper allocation of powers, where the judiciary says what the law is, and the legislature is tasked with implementing policy? With the question of abortion being returned to the legislative process post-Dobbs, do these cases invite more thoughtful dialogue about abortion and IVF policy, or do they sow further acrimony? Were these cases rightly decided? Can we articulate a legal standard vis-à-vis abortion and IVF that is both thoughtful and conceptually consistent? In what ways do abortion and IVF interact, both philosophically and legally? Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars in this space. Featuring: Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law & Deputy Dean; Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics; Harvard University Law School Prof. O. Carter Snead, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School (Moderator) Jennie Bradley Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America