Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences lawsuit against Harvard and New York University Law Reviews

Listen & Download

An organization called FASORP (Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences) has sued the Harvard Law Review and the NYU Law Review over their use of affirmative action in selecting members and articles. Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell is representing FASORP in each of these lawsuits. Mr. Mitchell is challenging the law reviews’ affirmative-action policies under Title VI and Title IX, and will discuss each of the lawsuits in this Teleforum. 
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Event Transcript

Operator:  Welcome to The Federalist Society's Practice Group Podcast. The following podcast, hosted by The Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, was recorded on Wednesday, December 12, 2018 during a live teleforum conference call held exclusively for Federalist Society members.        


Wesley Hodges:  Welcome to The Federalist Society's teleforum conference call. This afternoon's subject is Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences lawsuit against Harvard and New York University Law Reviews. My name is Wesley Hodges, and I'm the Associate Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.


As always, please note that all expressions of opinion are those of the expert on today's call.


Today we are very fortunate to have with us Mr. Jonathan Mitchell. Jonathan is a Visiting Professor of Law at the Stanford Law School. He's also principal of Mitchell Law PLLC. After our speaker gives his remarks today, we will move to an audience Q&A, so please keep in mind what questions you have for his lawsuits, or for this subject, or our speaker directly. Thank you very much for speaking with us today, Jonathan. The floor is yours.


Jonathan Mitchell:  All right. Well, thank you, Wes, and thank you all for joining our call today. We're here to discuss two recent lawsuits that have been filed, one against the Harvard Law Review and one against the NYU Law Review over their use of racial preferences and sex preferences, both in their selection of members for the journal and also in their selection of articles. And both of these lawsuits were filed on October 6, 2018, the same day Brett Kavanaugh got confirmed to the Supreme Court. And with this new shift in membership on the Supreme Court, the timing is right, at least in our view, to bring challenges to these affirmative action policies under Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.


So the challenges right now are based purely on statutes. There's no equal protection claim because both Harvard and NYU are private institutions and are not bound by the Equal Protection Clause. So the claims are being brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans racial discrimination in all entities that receive federal funding, and also Title IX of the Education Amendments on 1972, which ban sex discrimination in institutions of education that receive federal funds. So that's the basis for the claim.


The entity that has brought the lawsuits is called FASORP. It stands for Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences. It's an organization that consists of faculty, alumni, and students, as its name suggests, who would all have standing to sue to challenge these policies had they sued as individuals. But the association, the FASORP group, is asserting associational standing to get into federal court. And that way you don’t need to find a specific Abigail-Fisher-type plaintiff who's willing to stick her neck out and be the named plaintiff on the lawsuit. The organization is really on the frontline, and the members can recede into the background and even remain anonymous because the names shouldn't come out during the litigation because we're going to seek a protective order to keep the names secret.


So the litigation right now is in a very early stage. We filed our complaints. We're waiting for the universities to respond. They haven't yet filed their answers or their motions to dismiss. We also sued Secretary DeVos as a named defendant. And we included her as a defendant because she, by funding these universities, is violating Title VI and Title IX because under those statutes, she's required to cut off federal funds for any university that's engaging in race discrimination in violation of Title VI or sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. So this is a way of bringing the Trump administration into the case as a defendant, forcing them to take a position on the legality of these practices. We don’t know yet what the administration will do, but by including Secretary DeVos in the lawsuit, that essentially forces them to take some type of position on the issue that goes beyond the mere statement of interest that they filed in the recent Harvard lawsuit over Asian admissions.


One thing I'd like to discuss with members of the audience, to the extent you might be able to, is our ambitions go well beyond these two lawsuits. This is just a start. Harvard Law Review and the NYU Law Review were easy targets to sue, mostly because they admitted on their own website that they use racial preferences and sex preferences, and they admit they have a fixed numerical set aside for diversity candidates when they select their members. It was right there on the website. That made it a very easy target. There's not as much need for discovery. Very simple, straightforward case on the facts we hope. But there's a lot more we want to do than just this. Harvard and NYU are far from the only law schools or law reviews that use these type of policies. My understanding is of the top 15 law schools, 14 of the 15 have some type of affirmative action that's used for their law review selection. So we eventually would like to bring more lawsuits than just these two. But to do that, we need more resources and more manpower than what we currently have.


I've brought the lawsuit right now on behalf of my own firm. My firm is just a solo practitioner shop, and we're looking for other lawyers and other law firms to partner with. So if any of you on the call today think that you or your firms might be interested in participating on this case, please reach out to me and let me know. I'm talking with other firms at the moment, and as you can imagine, it's very hard to get this approved at big law firms because somebody will object or some institutional client will object. But I think it's an easier sell at smaller firms, middle-sized firms that may not have the same objections from institutional clients or other lawyers who have ideological predispositions in certain directions. So if you think you might have any interest, please reach out to me, or you can even mention it on the call today because I would love to discuss that.


Also, to the extent that any of you know of other potential targets that could be ripe for lawsuits in the wake of Kennedy's retirement, we'd love to hear about that also. Again, we sued Harvard and NYU just because they were so open and obvious about what they were doing and putting it on their website. But most of the other institutions that engage in these practices, it's done in a much more quiet, underhanded way. So if there are other places that you think would be good potential defendants in lawsuits of this sort, we would love to hear about that as well.


So one purpose of this call, I think, is not only to let all of you know about the litigation but, more importantly, I think to let you know we want to do more than just these two lawsuits. And to the extent that anyone in The Federalist Society network might be interested in helping us in that regard, please reach out to us and let us know because we really want to hear from you if you're interested in either participating in these cases as a plaintiff side attorney or helping us find other potential targets for lawsuits. Now really is the time to bring them. I don't think the courts are going to get any better for us on this issue than what we have right now. And if you look at Chief Justice Roberts, who everyone views right now as the median Justice, his past opinions on affirmative action are very dogmatic. He may flake out on other types of issues, but I don't expect him to flake out on this one. So that's my opening remark. I think we can open it up for comments, questions, at this point.


Wesley Hodges:  Of course, Jonathan. It looks like we do have one caller right away with a question. Jonathan, let's go ahead and turn to that person.


Caller 1:  Hi. My question is what would be the best argument against your position because, facially, it seems so discriminatory?


Jonathan Mitchell:  I think there are several arguments we would expect Harvard to make. For one thing, the Law Review is a separate corporation from the university. And they may try to say that because the Law Review is not part of the university; therefore, they're not bound by Title VI. That argument I don't think should work because the text of Title VI says "program" that receives federal funds. And in our view the Law Review is surely part of the same program, and, of course, I've read the term "program" very broadly. So that's more of a technical argument.


I think we'll be seeing arguments attacking our standing, which, again, I don't think they'll succeed, but I would expect Harvard to do everything possible to try to force us out on standing grounds by saying that our alleged injuries are too speculative or not sufficiently pleaded, or who knows what they'll do on that.


Now, getting into the real meat of the case on the meaning of Title VI, there is language at the end of Grutter that says, "Title VI means the same thing as the Equal Protections Clause." And it cites Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke. And that's it. That's the only analysis they have. And because the Equal Protections Clause has this exception for compelling interests, and diversity, and all that other stuff that they say in Grutter and Fisher, the university will argue that Grutter, Fisher, and those cases should carry over to Title VI and Title IX and create this non-textual exception in the statute for diversity promoting affirmative action policies.


I fully expect them to make that argument. It shouldn't work for all sorts of reasons. Law review is distinguishable from admissions because the compelling interest in Grutter that the courts recognized was a diverse student body. The student body at Harvard is equally diverse no matter who's on the Law Review. Same thing with NYU.


So the other distinction is Grutter talks about deference to university administrators. Deference. Deference. University administrators say diversity's important. University administrators are experts. The policies of the law review are not set by anyone at the university; they're set by the students. Professors aren't setting these affirmative action policies; the kids on the law review are doing this. Also, we found out that Dean Elena Kagan, back when she was dean and before she became a Supreme Court Justice, opposed the decision of the Harvard Law Review to expand affirmative action to women because she thought it would actually hurt women at Harvard because the every woman who makes Law Review, people won't be able to know, "Did they actually earn their way on by grades or performance on the writing competition? Or were they beneficiaries of preferences?"


So when you actually have the people who run the law school opposing it -- and we will have to find a way to get that into the record, but this actually was reported in campus newspapers and several sources told me that Kagan was opposed to expanding affirmative action on the Law Review to women. If we get that into the record, that blows up any reliance on Grutter because now you can actually prove that the dean of the law school, who runs the law school, the expert who we're supposed to defer to was actively opposed to the policy, and she was overruled by the kids who ran the Law Review.


So we have answers to all of these possible arguments they will make, at least the expected arguments. And they have very talented lawyers on the other side. WilmerHale and Munger, Tolles & Olson are representing Harvard; Susman Godfrey is representing NYU. So they're bringing out the big guns. I'm sure they'll think of all the arguments that can be made. This is what I would expect them to say.


Wesley Hodges:  Thank you very much, caller. Looks like we do have another question in the queue, Jonathan. Let's go ahead and move to our next caller.


Caller 2:  Yes, I'm curious as to your thoughts regarding the situation earlier this year involving Professor Wax at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and the dean's claim that the Law Review did not have a diversity mandate, which appears to be contrary to at least previous policies, if not the current policy.


Jonathan Mitchell:  I'm not aware of the details of that incident. Can you elaborate a little more? Did the dean of the law school at Penn said that the Law Review did not have a diversity policy?


Caller 2:  Yes. In a statement announcing that a professor would be suspended -- I'm sorry, would no longer be teaching the mandatory 1L courses, the dean asserted that there is no diversity mandate on the Penn Law Review. Let me get the exact quote here . . . The statement claimed that the Law Review "does not have a diversity mandate. Rather its editors are reflected based on a competitive process."


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yeah, I'm almost certain that Penn Law Review uses some type of affirmative action. If the dean wants to play word games and say that's not a diversity mandate and it's holistic consideration, maybe that's what his point was. I can investigate and find out. Could you actually email me those materials? Just email me --


Caller 2:  Sure. What is your email address?


Jonathan Mitchell:  So my email is jonathan@mitchell.law. Can you just email me everything you have about that, and I'll maybe reach out to Professor Wax and look into this.


Caller 2:  Okay, great. Thank you very much.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yeah, thank you. Once we get more lawyers involved in this case, I'm hoping we can bring more lawsuits against other law reviews that are using these. And if Penn is one of the lawsuits, we can take discovery and find out whether they really have a diversity mandate or not.


Wesley Hodges:  Thank you, caller, for your question. Again, Jonathan, just to turn it back to the audience. Your email address is accessible for everyone that wants to be involved in this, correct?


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yes, it should be. You can email me at -- also, my Stanford address. You can find that address by typing that name into Google. But my law firm has a website – mitchell.law – so you can find me there and email me there.


Also, I should say FASORP has a website. So it's fasorp.org. www.fasorp.org. You can email me from that as well. There's an email that goes to a FASORP account. And if you want to join FASORP, you can join on the website. And joining expands the possible targets of defendants. If you're going to run this with a certain law school or you were on the law review and you can assert injury and fact because affirmative action is diluting the prestige of the law review credential, that's something we're asserting as a grounds for associational standing. So anyone you wants to join, there's no charge. Just join, fill out the form, submit [it], we have your name. And encourage others to join as well, because the more people who are in the group, the more potential defendants that we have to go after.


Wesley Hodges:  Thank you, Jonathan. I'll maybe direct our conversation to explaining more about these situations. How widespread is it, you find, that there's these kind of racial preferences in law reviews? Is it pretty ubiquitous across law schools in America? Could you elaborate on that some?


Jonathan Mitchell:  It is certainly ubiquitous at the top 15 law journals. And Harvard and NYU are the only ones who are foolish enough to admit it on their own website, and admit they have a fixed numerical set aside. I think at other law schools, it's a softer policy. There's preferences, but it's not as rigid as what Harvard and NYU have set up.


Another really interesting twist about this case is Harvard and NYU give preference not only to women and racial minorities, they also give preferences to homosexuals and transgendered people, which raises the question of whether that constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX. And this is an issue that is currently being litigated in the federal courts. The Second Circuit, where NYU is located, has held that discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII, Title IX, and all the other federal statutes that outlaw sex discrimination. The First Circuit, where Harvard is located, has not yet weighed in on this issue.


So one of the ironies in this litigation is I'm arguing for the broad -- the liberal interpretation, the Obama interpretation of sex discrimination by saying that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the count of sexual orientation and gender identity, and therefore Harvard's policy that gives preferences to homosexuals is illegal under Title IX. I can't wait to see how the Harvard lawyers answer this. Are they going to say, "No, no. Title IX doesn't cover sexual orientation; therefore, our policy is perfectly okay as applied to homosexuals and transgendered people."? Or is Harvard going to take the other view? So it's really interesting how that dynamic is playing out.


And one thing I'm interested is if this case ever goes to the Supreme Court, we may have another cert where the issue, totally apart from the affirmative action question, which is, "What's the meaning of sex discrimination under Title IX?" And wouldn't it be ironic to see Harvard arguing for the conservative position on sex discrimination in an effort to save its current affirmative action policies on the Law Review. But I'm getting way ahead of myself.


Wesley Hodges:  Thank you, Jonathan. It looks like we do have another question in the queue. Let's move to our next caller.


Caller 3:  Yes, congratulations. I think you are to be commended. So my question is what about the faculties, a much bigger and more important area? The evidence is just harder to develop? Or no admissions on the internet, or what?


Jonathan Mitchell:  Oh, I really want to go after faculty hiring. And it's exactly what you said. It's just hard to prove in court. Everyone knows that is going on with the faculty hiring where women and minorities are getting preferential treatment in faculty hiring decisions. But how do you prove it without a smoking gun? I'll bring the lawsuit as soon as we have a suitable target. But I think for this to work we would need a mole, you know, somebody who's actually on the faculty, someone who's keeping incriminating emails and is willing to turn them over to me. Or somebody who's secretly recording faculty meetings where this stuff is discussed. I think we would need something like that because, otherwise, how do you prove it, right? You could go into court and say, "Look, this person had a terrible job talk paper. Just read it. The job talk paper's a piece of garbage. This white male who was passed over had a great job talk paper, placed in a better journal, and so forth." But the law school can always come back and say, "Yeah, but you know what? We had teaching needs in this particular area." They can always concoct some rationale for why candidate A got hired over candidate B.


So I'm just waiting for the smoking gun. And if they're any law professors on this call, feel free if you have evidence to send it our way. Once we get the evidence, we'll bring the suit. But I think we have to be very careful. We don’t want to bring a lawsuit against faculty hiring and lose for lack of evidence. That's worse, in my view, than not bringing the lawsuit at all in the first place. I don't want to bring the case until we have the evidence that we know can win in court on the factual question.


So on the website, on the FASORP website, you can submit evidence of racially discriminatory policies. You can just drag and drop PDF files and then submit it to FASORP. And you can do it totally anonymously if you're worried about any backlash or retaliation from yourself. So there's ways you can submit this if you're either a law professor or even if you're not. Even in your own place of business, if you know of racial preferences or sex preferences that are happening, you can submit that evidence to the FASORP website totally anonymously, and we can take it from there. But until we have that evidence, I don't want to strike until we have the evidence.


Caller 3:  I guess it would be hard to cite the Senator for Massachusetts as evidence, but anyway.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Well, you know, we could take discovery on that. I was thinking about this because the entire Harvard University is the named defendant. And the entire university has to comply with Title VI and Title IX not just the Law Review. So there's nothing to stop us from taking discovery on that issue that you just raised. There's not --




Jonathan Mitchell:  Yeah go ahead.


Caller 3:  They actually bragged about it. I mean, they said that she was the first Native American hire. It's not an admission, but it's some indicia of what their practice was.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yeah. I mean, the problem is it happened so long ago. I don't even know the year back when she was hired. It really was a long time ago when she got her job there. The other thing we could dig into is how Barack Obama got onto the Law Review because they were using racial preferences back in the early '90s and late '80s. So we can try to dig out Barack Obama's grades and find out how he did on the writing competition and see whether he got onto Law Review through his academic credentials or whether he got on by checking the box. We'll be able to find all of that out once we get to discovery.


Caller 3:  I think Obama managed to protect his grades. I think people tried to get those for eight years and were unable to get anything on his Harvard records. But that's good.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Well, I don't know -- we will ask for them in discovery. And I don't know how they could deny that discovery request because it's obviously relevant to what we're trying to prove.


Caller 3:  Right. Right.


Wesley Hodges:  Thank you very much, caller. Appreciate your questions. Let's go ahead and turn to our next caller.


Caller 4:  Yes, this is actually sort of a philosophical question that goes back to Professor Sander's mismatch research, which I'm sure you're very familiar with.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yes.


Caller 4:  If you didn't have preferences of any kind, there would hardly be any African Americans or Hispanics at top U.S. law schools, and a lot of people just can't stomach that. And I suspect you'd probably get the same result with the law reviews, and probably a lot of people couldn't stomach that either. What do you say to people?


Jonathan Mitchell:  So we haven't gone after student admissions in these lawsuits, and I'm not planning to do that,0 partly because I think the arguments for racial preferences are a little more nuanced in that context. With the law reviews, it's clear that women can make law review without preferences. Harvard had plenty of women on the Law Review. So did NYU. Harvard was upset because it wasn't reflecting the precise, proportionate breakdown of men and women in the overall student body or the population at large. That's why they instituted preferences for women.


On the racial issue, yeah, I think you're right. It's going to be hard to get minorities on the law reviews given that they're already getting preferences in the law school, which means they're not likely to be at the top of their class, and therefore not likely to get on the law review through academic merit. And one of the reasons I think affirmative action exists is because a lot of people just don’t want to have that situation where you have no racial minorities on the journal. So that will be a question I guess -- a question for the courts to resolve is does that count as a compelling state interest that allows you to otherwise disregard the equal protection ban on race discrimination.


But more importantly, I think what I would say in court is, "Then amend the statute." Title VI and Title IX are not constitutional requirements, and if Congress wants to amend Title VI to make allowances for policies of this sort, Congress has the prerogative to do so. Now, then, of course, we'd have to ask whether that amendment to Title VI is constitutional or the amendment to Title IX. But because were only fighting this on statutory grounds, we can always just say, "Look, if you think this is undesirable as a policy matter, Congress can change the statute. But right now the statute says, 'no race discrimination in entities that receive federal funds.' Period. There are no exceptions. There's no exception for diversity. There's no exception for compelling state interest. That's what the statute says, and if you don’t like what the statute says, write to your congressman and have Congress change it." And Congress will change it if there's enough public support to change it. So that's how I would answer your philosophical question.


Congress makes the laws. We have to enforce the laws according to what they say. If the laws produce bad policy outcomes, that's a reason to amend the law. It's not a reason for the courts to disregard what the statute says and replace it with a statute that the court would wish the statute actually said.


Caller 4:  Thanks. I think Congress making law would be a refreshing change.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yeah. What a novel idea.


Wesley Hodges:  Excellent. Well, thank you very much, caller, for your question. Jonathan, happy to move in any direction you'd like now, but I do want to ask, perhaps, just taking a moment on Congress. Perhaps this is out of the scope of the conversation, but what's the feasibility of Congress stepping in and changing the laws? Any movement on that in recent history that you can share with us?


Jonathan Mitchell:  I'm not aware of it on this particular topic. I think I vaguely remember in the mid-'90s when the Republicans won Congress after the Gingrich revolution of '94, somebody had introduced in the House a bill that would clarify Title VI to ban affirmative action. And it was defeated, even in a Republican-majority House. Now, I don't think you can read much into rejected proposals, and I wonder if Harvard is going to trying to tap that as a reason to interpret Title VI in the way that they favor. But there wasn't the political support, even with Republican majorities, to completely ban affirmative action.


Now, that was touching more on the issue of student admissions and less on the issues that I'm focusing on in this litigation, which is law review membership. But it seemed pretty clear based on that vote that there isn't the political will to at weigh into the issue by amending the statute. Would that dynamic change if we got a court ruling in our favor? And the burden of inertia's flipped, and now the proponents of affirmative action needed to be the ones to amend Title VI to allow it. I don't know. But that is at least one data point on this issue, where I think it was brought to a vote in the House and defeated.


Wesley Hodges:  Thank you, Jonathan, for that context. It does look like we do have one question --


Jonathan Mitchell:  Oh, we have a call. Great.


Wesley Hodges:  -- Let's go ahead and turn to that person.


Caller 3:  Yeah, I came back for a more general question because somebody brought up a philosophical question. Just to give you a quick background, years ago when I was in law school, I had as a professor named Phil Hauser, Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago, who was one of the founders of what you call "urban sociology" back then. And we were talking about racial discrimination, and preferences, and so forth, and I asked him about the issue of Appalachian Whites. In Chicago, where I went to law school, there's a large community called Uptown, which is a community, then was populated predominantly by Appalachian Whites. And Hauser responded that the Appalachian White is the only minority in the United States who is discriminated against and has no representation, or no legal status, or privilege. That's the background. My question is, since you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about these issues, what about the notion of bringing into the lawsuits that you're talking about, even the law review aspects of it, the question of disadvantaged White minority who suffer at the hands of these policies that you're attacking, the preferences?


Jonathan Mitchell:  Well, we definitely want to challenge the notion that diversity is a genuine commitment among these institutions because, as you say, there are all sorts of other underrepresented groups. Think about faculty hiring. The most underrepresented group on law school faculties is conservatives, in terms of political affiliations and the way people think. And there's never been any effort by law schools to achieve diversity of viewpoint by trying consciously to hire more conservative faculty members.


So when we see law schools, and Harvard, and NYU, and groups like this talk about diversity, they're very selective in terms of the diversity they're trying to achieve. They're trying to achieve diversity along certain racial lines, but not on other types of dimensions, such as diversity of viewpoint, diversity of opinion, diversity of religion. There're all sorts of other underrepresented groups that never get a preference.


Or even Native Americans. Someone brought up Elizabeth Warren. Native Americans are extremely underrepresented, even with the existence of affirmative action policies. And there's very little being done to rectify that deficiency. So I don't know what the difference is. It could be that Native American groups don’t have the same clout to clamber for these types of preferences that other minority groups may have. It's not as clear. But that is something we're going to try to look at in the discovery process, which is you guys at least talk about diversity, but do you really mean it? Why are some groups getting preferences and others are just being ignored even though they are very underrepresented?


Caller 3:  Yeah, I guess it depends on Carolene Products, you know, who's the "discreet and insular minority?" I don't know who qualifies for that. That one seems to be where some of this problem can be traced back to – Footnote Four in Carolene Products, a "discreet and insular minority." And I don't know that conservatives qualify, but I would think Appalachian Whites, historically, and economically, and politically would qualify as a "discreet and insular minority," but I don't know.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yeah. In terms of groups that have been victims of past discrimination, or groups who may be victims of implicit bias or subconscious bias, Appalachian Whites would have as good of a claim to that as other groups would, I would think. So, yeah, this is definitely going to be something that will be briefed and litigated. If diversity is a compelling interest, why is diversity only being pursued along certain dimensions and not others? And that's a question that the universities will have to answer.


Wesley Hodges:  Thank you very much, caller, for your questions. Not seeing any immediate questions, I turn the mic back to you, Jonathan. Is there anything you'd like to focus on more before we close today?


Jonathan Mitchell:  Well, one thing, too, is if anyone has ideas for arguments that we can make in litigation, we'd be interested to hear that as well. Feel free to email them to me, either to my own email or through FASORP. This is somewhat of a novel project. I know affirmative action has been litigated before. But it's never been litigated in the context of a law review, and the idea that preferences are now being extended beyond mere student admissions and are being extended to things such as academic honors is something that just hasn't been addressed before in the courts. So we very much want to hear from anyone who has ideas, and I'm sure many of you have thought about this as well and may have ideas for what we can put into the briefs or ideas for what we can pursue during discovery. Just feel free to reach out to us at any time. We want to be open to all possibilities. And I know a lot of people have good ideas out there for what we might try to pursue. So, again, just let us know on all of these different issues – ideas that you have for what we can litigate, potential defendants that we could use a targets, and also just potential lawyers who may want to be working on these cases alongside of us.


Wesley Hodges:  Well, thank you, Jonathan. Perhaps, for anyone that's joined late or just to say it again, would you mind sharing one more time how people can get in touch with you?


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yes. So you can email me at jonathan@mitchell.law. Or you can visit the FASORP website which is fasorp.org, and you can email us through the website, and you can also submit evidence through that website. And you can put your name on it, or you can submit anonymously. Either way.


Wesley Hodges:  Well, thank you, Jonathan. I believe on The Federalist Society page for this teleforum, you should be able to find the link to FASORP as well.


Jonathan Mitchell:  Yeah.


Wesley Hodges:  Seeing no more questions from the audience, Jonathan, any closing remarks today?


Jonathan Mitchell:  Thank you all for joining, and please spread the word to the extent you're able. And we're hoping that this is just the start of what will be a large number of lawsuits brought against policies of this sort. And we're really looking forward to litigating these in as many different courts and as many different circuits as possible. So thanks for your interest in the cases. And, again, feel free to reach out to me any time if you have ideas or want to discuss any of this.


Wesley Hodges:  Wonderful. Well, on behalf of The Federalist Society, I'd like to thank you for the benefit of your valuable time and expertise today. We welcome all listener feedback by email at info@fedsoc.org. Thank you all for joining. The call is now adjourned.


Operator:  Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed this practice group podcast. For materials related to this podcast and other Federalist Society multimedia, please visit The Federalist Society's website at fedsoc.org/multimedia.