Today the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Van Buren v. United States, which presents the Court with its first opportunity to interpret the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a 1986 federal statute that punishes unauthorized access of computers. The Committee for Justice filed an amicus brief with the Court in support of Nathan Van Buren, a police officer who was charged with a felony under the CFAA for obtaining a license plate number for personal reasons from a law enforcement database he was otherwise authorized to use.

Our panel of experts discuss antitrust federalism, the complexities of state enforcement actions, and how state antitrust law can differ from federal law (and why that’s potentially a problem). We also delve into the current investigations as well as one of the last major multi-state antitrust actions, Ohio v. American Express.

When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated in 2018 to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy, the bloodiest high-court confirmation fight in almost 30 years resulted. We could only imagine the fight to the death if President Trump chose a conservative nominee to replace a left-leaning justice, especially liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Surely protesters dressed as handmaids would set themselves on fire outside the hearing room. It didn’t happen. The vote to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett was close, 52-48. But her confirmation was never in much doubt, and Senate Democrats made little effort to bloody Judge Barrett. Why?

On October 7th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Google v. Oracle, as the two companies battle over the copyrightability of software in what will be the biggest copyright case in several decades. The Court’s ruling in Google v. Oracle is expected to set the standard for how thoroughly computer code is protected by copyright. In this virtual panel, legal experts weigh in on the case and discuss any insights from oral argument.

We applaud tonight's confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, which is historic for at least two reasons. One, Barrett is the first female conservative justice in the nation's history, despite President Reagan's best intentions when he nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to the Court. Two, for the first time since the 1930's, there is the potential for a true conservative majority on the Supreme Court. While Democrats and the media have long spoken of a "conservative" Court, their assumption that Justices Roberts and Kennedy were conservatives was a fiction. At very least, Barrett's confirmation will go a long way to reassure Americans discouraged by a string of liberal, activist decisions at the end o...

The Senate Judiciary Committee just approved Judge Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court and a confirmation vote on the Senate floor is expected next week. So it's a great time to look back on how this confirmation process is going, how it compares to previous Supreme Court nomination fights, and what we can expect to happen on the Senate floor. Our panel of legal experts will also discuss Democrats' court packing threats and the implications of this confirmation battle for the presidential and Senate elections.

The prospect of a new Supreme Court justice brings a renewed focus on many of the Court's controversial doctrines. While much of the speculation on Judge Amy Coney Barret’s nomination has focused on social issues such as abortion, she could be a critical vote in the Court’s future on Chevron deference. Chevron deference— named for the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council — holds that courts should defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute when its language does not clearly answer the question at issue, provided the agency interpretation is reasonable. This has often allowed agencies to turn statutory ambiguity into a justification for expanding the scope of their authority. This authorit...

We applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee's approval today of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination. Democrats' childish tactic of boycotting the vote succeeded only in allowing history to record that Barrett was approved unanimously by the Committee. This was just the latest in a series of failed Democrat tactics to derail her nomination.

On October 7, 2020, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania Student Chapter and the Regulatory Transparency Project co-sponsored an event on "Antitrust Populism and the Conservative Movement." During the 1986 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for then-Judge Antonin Scalia, he was asked about his views on antitrust. “In law school, I never understood [antitrust law],” Scalia explained, “I later found out, in reading the writings of those who now do understand it, that I should not have understood it because it did not make any sense then.” Some contend that the much-needed coherency in antitrust law was brought about by the Chicago School revolution and the adoption of the consumer welfare standard.